- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:25 am
#36724
Passage Discussion
Paragraph 1 Overview
This passage opens with a characterization of two contrasting literary theories: reader-response theory
and formalist literary criticism. It is very common for LSAT passages to present multiple approaches
to a given subject. In most cases, the author of the passage will endorse one of these approaches and
provide justification for doing so. A test takers primary task when reading such passages is to identify
the defining characteristics of each approach, along with the purported strengths and weaknesses. In
the passage, the defining characteristics are immediately evident: formalism places “emphasis in the
interpretation of literature [on] the text itself” and reader-response theory shifts that emphasis “to the
contributions of readers to the meaning of a text” (lines 3-5). Note also that reader-response theory is a
reaction to formalism, indicating that reader-response theory arose subsequent to formalism. The passage
further informs readers that reader-response theory imbues literary texts with no meaning independent
of individual readers and that this attribute increases the probability of varying interpretations. These
varying interpretations are labeled “fragmented views” by formalists, who advocate a unified approach
to literary texts. The final sentence of this paragraph gives readers their first indication of the author’s
perspective by labeling the formalists’ view “unnecessarily narrow” (line 20).
Paragraph 2 Overview
The passage continues by contrasting the two referenced approaches with regard to the search for
meaning within literary texts. Formalists characterize their approach as rational and objective while
maintaining that reader-response theory lacks standards and is almost completely subjective. The second
sentence of this paragraph bears further analysis: since authors cannot pack countless meanings into
literary texts, countless interpretations of those texts must be meaningless. This seems to be the primary
concern of formalists regarding reader-response theory – that the real meaning of the text will be lost
amidst innumerable fragmented interpretations, and that this outcome can be avoided by responsible
critics who search a literary text closely to find the author’s intended meaning. The author agrees that
texts must be closely searched (lines 32-35), but argues that this search need not lead to a singular
destination. The final sentence provides a rebuttal of the formalists’ premise that no author can create
a work that is packed with countless meanings. The author of a literary text does not have to pack
countless meanings into a text since many of these meanings are “created in encounters between text
and readers” (lines 39-40). These additional meanings necessitate an approach that recognizes and uses
them, an approach such as reader-response theory.
Paragraph 3 Overview
As noted in paragraph one, reader-response theory emphasizes the varying presuppositions and
perceptions of readers. The author now adds that the emphasis “can uncover hitherto unnoticed
dimensions of the text” (lines 43-44). The second sentence of this paragraph is rather lengthy and should
be read carefully to avoid misinterpretation. Be careful not to conclude that this information changes
the temporal relationship between formalism and reader-response theory. In lines 49-55, the author
concedes a potential weakness of reader-response theory, but believes that this weakness is outweighed
by “legitimate additional insights and understandings.” Note that the author believes that burdening
literature of the past with contemporary ideologies is sometimes unfair; the author does not necessarily
believe that contemporary reinterpretations are always inappropriate. Again, be careful to avoid
overstating or oversimplifying the arguments within any Reading Comprehension passage. The passage
closes with a strong endorsement of reader-response theory.
Passage Summary
Written texts are fluid and lively forms of discourse and are subject to multiple interpretations as
proposed by reader-response theory, a theory that provides more appropriate insight into a literary text
than formalism.
Passage Structure
Paragraph 1: Describes two contrasting literary theories and argues that one is inferior
(formalism)
Paragraph 2: Examines the tenets of both theories in greater detail and provides further support
for the more recent theory (reader-response theory)
Paragraph 3: Argues that the potential benefits of the more recent theory greatly outweigh the
possible harms, and concludes that this newer theory is the more preferable of the two
Paragraph 1 Overview
This passage opens with a characterization of two contrasting literary theories: reader-response theory
and formalist literary criticism. It is very common for LSAT passages to present multiple approaches
to a given subject. In most cases, the author of the passage will endorse one of these approaches and
provide justification for doing so. A test takers primary task when reading such passages is to identify
the defining characteristics of each approach, along with the purported strengths and weaknesses. In
the passage, the defining characteristics are immediately evident: formalism places “emphasis in the
interpretation of literature [on] the text itself” and reader-response theory shifts that emphasis “to the
contributions of readers to the meaning of a text” (lines 3-5). Note also that reader-response theory is a
reaction to formalism, indicating that reader-response theory arose subsequent to formalism. The passage
further informs readers that reader-response theory imbues literary texts with no meaning independent
of individual readers and that this attribute increases the probability of varying interpretations. These
varying interpretations are labeled “fragmented views” by formalists, who advocate a unified approach
to literary texts. The final sentence of this paragraph gives readers their first indication of the author’s
perspective by labeling the formalists’ view “unnecessarily narrow” (line 20).
Paragraph 2 Overview
The passage continues by contrasting the two referenced approaches with regard to the search for
meaning within literary texts. Formalists characterize their approach as rational and objective while
maintaining that reader-response theory lacks standards and is almost completely subjective. The second
sentence of this paragraph bears further analysis: since authors cannot pack countless meanings into
literary texts, countless interpretations of those texts must be meaningless. This seems to be the primary
concern of formalists regarding reader-response theory – that the real meaning of the text will be lost
amidst innumerable fragmented interpretations, and that this outcome can be avoided by responsible
critics who search a literary text closely to find the author’s intended meaning. The author agrees that
texts must be closely searched (lines 32-35), but argues that this search need not lead to a singular
destination. The final sentence provides a rebuttal of the formalists’ premise that no author can create
a work that is packed with countless meanings. The author of a literary text does not have to pack
countless meanings into a text since many of these meanings are “created in encounters between text
and readers” (lines 39-40). These additional meanings necessitate an approach that recognizes and uses
them, an approach such as reader-response theory.
Paragraph 3 Overview
As noted in paragraph one, reader-response theory emphasizes the varying presuppositions and
perceptions of readers. The author now adds that the emphasis “can uncover hitherto unnoticed
dimensions of the text” (lines 43-44). The second sentence of this paragraph is rather lengthy and should
be read carefully to avoid misinterpretation. Be careful not to conclude that this information changes
the temporal relationship between formalism and reader-response theory. In lines 49-55, the author
concedes a potential weakness of reader-response theory, but believes that this weakness is outweighed
by “legitimate additional insights and understandings.” Note that the author believes that burdening
literature of the past with contemporary ideologies is sometimes unfair; the author does not necessarily
believe that contemporary reinterpretations are always inappropriate. Again, be careful to avoid
overstating or oversimplifying the arguments within any Reading Comprehension passage. The passage
closes with a strong endorsement of reader-response theory.
Passage Summary
Written texts are fluid and lively forms of discourse and are subject to multiple interpretations as
proposed by reader-response theory, a theory that provides more appropriate insight into a literary text
than formalism.
Passage Structure
Paragraph 1: Describes two contrasting literary theories and argues that one is inferior (formalism) Paragraph 2: Examines the tenets of both theories in greater detail and provides further support for the more recent theory (reader-response theory) Paragraph 3: Argues that the potential benefits of the more recent theory greatly outweigh the possible harms, and concludes that this newer theory is the more preferable of the two