which of the opposing theories reader response or authorial intent is correct please defend reader response theory in this essay


4 to 6 pages

4 Reliable outside sources (i will attach them below) if you find better sources please include them!

MLA Format

Your essay must contain:


a clear argument – you must take a clear and firm stand on the question

of which literary theory you agree with, Reader Response or Authorial



Support for that argument by means of evidence.


A counter-argument – Make a case for the opposing opinion.


A rebuttal to the counter-argument – Why the opposing opinion is weak.

Your thesis statement will answer the question:

Which of the opposing theories, Reader Response or Authorial Intent, is


Authorial intent Theory:

A position that argues that the creator of a text possesses a privileged

understanding of its meaning and that consequently any interpretation that

contradicts this understanding must defer to the author’s intentions.

Reader Response Theory (This is the topic I would like for you to defend)

A view of literary works that argues that meaning does not reside in the

text, but in the mind of the reader. The text functions only as a canvas onto

which the reader projects whatever his or her reactions may be. The text is

a cause of different thoughts, but does not provide a reason for one

interpretation rather than another.

sources to use:

Focus on Reader-Response Strategies, 2012books.lardbucket.org/books/creating-literary-analysis/s10-03-focus-on-reader-response-strat.html.

“Pennington Publishing Blog.” Reader-Response Theory | Pennington Publishing Blog, blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/reader-response-theory/.

Purdue Writing Lab. “Reader-Response Criticism // Purdue Writing Lab.” Purdue Writing Lab, owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/literary_theory_and_schools_of_criticism/reader_response_criticism.html.

Scott, and Linda M. “Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Dec. 1994, academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/21/3/461/1845277.