Reply to comment

1. I wonder how much AGE is a factor in differentiating readers in Reader Response Theory. We have a wonderful opportunity with 3-4 generations of Bryn Mawr women to explore. I checked the class roster and we range from first year undergraduate women to Mary and Beatrice who graduated in the 40’s.

2. The male canon of “literature” and the “other”/alienated result is real. I have felt it since childhood. That is why Nancy Drew was so important. There were no other models available. During my first year at Bryn Mawr, while waiting for my washing, I read Shakespeare, since Kate and Beatrice were the only strong, verbal, witty women in the “acceptable” literature. Today, I consciously choose women authors- even in pulp fiction with women detectives. I use this kind of psychological protection.

3. The notion of validity in the conclusion- “It’ validity is contingent on the agreement of others”. Today’s Wikipedia and the web jump to mind.

4. The arguments of the article, the basic duality between writer and reader, it seems to me is the same in all other art forms. The androcentric canon and approach strategies result in women’s bifurcated response and still ”confirms the position as other”. I happen to be in the visual arts. From pre-Columbian to Bacon or Picasso, the feminist theory of reading, or viewing, or listening must be in our consciousness.