The Trout Readers: Constituent Analysis, Based on Two Comments Per Reader

Making Readers. Sept 2006

“The Trout” readers: Constituent analysis, based on two comments per reader

*modified from version supplied (maybe incorrectly!)

So far: 108 constituents

21: Character

4: Character emotionCharacter: 25, or 23%

14: Plot

31: Reader emotionReader total: 46, or 43%

9: other Reader

6: SelfEmotion total: 35, or 32%

7: Theme

Commentaries

Probably better done verbally, close to reading moment; writing may elicit essay style responses

Instructions to readers, schematized (too simple?):

• Striking and evocative = response to texture, style, feelings, memory (aesthetic aspects) > intrinsic, pre-explanatory
• Interesting = curiosity, suspense, story-driven aspects of plot and character (narrative aspects) > extrinsic, thematizing, interpretive

Designed to catch first responses, including pre-interpretive – but limited to two (here)

Constituent analysis

Type: instance – enables classification into larger constituents, e.g., style, reader emotion; note, only 7/108 are theme

Count frequency per segment (here, paragraph), bar chart: suggests key points of story

Examine type frequency by segment position (not done here: is reader emotion more frequent early, etc.?)

Ideally, train coders and have each commentary coded by three people

Should code every comment, including quotations from the story

Ideally (also): break story down into sentences for commentary rather than paragraphs

Literariness

See list: how many constituents appear amenable to classification by features within Aesthetic, Engagement, Challenge to reader's world view, Meaning/universality ? (and if a constituent cannot be typed as literary, what is it?)

Iser, “Interaction between text and reader”

How effectively does Iser’s schematization of the reading process capture the significance of our constituents? – e.g.,

artistic vs. aesthetic poles

codes in text to be restructured

the blanks, indeterminacy of, prompt reader ideation

“deeper emotion” below surface, apparently “trivial scenes”

reader “guided to adopt a position in relation to the text”

textual segments / gaps, missing links

referential field of interacting text segments

referential field > segment in focus: theme

Examples

Reader 11, para #1. “One of the first places…”

The description of the dark walk was a striking one, you were really able to get a sense of atmosphere. I liked the use of the words smooth and sinewy, and especially the particular passage: “Underfoot the tough brown leaves are never dry enough to crackle: there is always a suggestion of damp and cool trickle.” I thought these words flowed well and it really gave me a sense of a dark, damp, and cold atmosphere. [Reader imagery: text creates easy to picture imagery]

Reader 4, para #2. “She raced right into it. …”

I found the description of Julia’s sprint through the dark forest to be quite striking. As a result of the nature of the description things that are not alive were personified by their descriptions, such as “she felt the dusk closing swiftly down on her” giving the dusk an almost human sounding nature. I also liked the use of the description of “drinking in the sun” as it is not a normal way of describing enjoying the sun and grabs the reader’s attention. [reader emotion: enjoys use of sun/drinking metaphor]

Reader 7, para #18. “It was late June, the longest…”

I liked this paragraph because it shows how this girl is growing up and coming of age. It demonstrates her eagerness to grow up and have a ‘realness’ of life to herself and not be concerned with childish things like her brother. At the same time she gives the reader a hint of her wanting to hold on to things like the fairy tale her mother is telling, “But she kept one ear cocked” without giving hint of that to the people around her. [Character: wants to be mature and child at the same time]

Frequency of paragraphs chosen for commentary