Reader Response - Theory on Robinson

Introduction:

"Robinson Crusoe", which was written by Daniel Defoe, appeared with a new style in its time. The strange on this novel was its title which has been changed. Now its title is "Robinson Crusoe", but the previous was like a summary of the whole actions, it was "THE LIFE AND STRANGE SURPRIZING ADVENTURES OF ROBINSON CRUSOE OF TORK, - MARINER: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an uninhabited Island on the Coast of AMERICA near the Mouth of the Great River of OROONOQUE; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Man perished but himself. WITH An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by PYRATES.(en.wikiepedia.org, n.d.) Also we find that Defoe did not use his name on that novel and instead he wrote that it was written by Himself for the sake of what? In the same time, he used the pronoun "I" and the first type narrator in order to force the readers to sympathize with the hero. Besides, he portrayed Crusoe as a man who has all the justifications for every deed he does. Actually, these things and others pushed me to wonder about this way, this style, and this purpose of the author. I brought to my mind the expression of Bill Ashcroft when he said: "One of the main features of imperial oppression is control over language".(Ashcroft,1938:7) This sentence changed my mind because I found the answer seems very clear here when I remembered Edward Said's sentence: "The Orient has helped to define Europe or the West as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience". (Said, 1979:1-2). By gathering these two ideas, we can discover the truth that 'Robinson Crusoe' is a book of teaching, so it is allegorical one. Since the language of Crusoe who is considered as a colonizer here, it is good to fight against it because fighting is the only way to defend the others, the oriental, the black, the Muslims, and even the savages, of being nations who deserve to be colonized. It is a fact that whenever a great country intends to occupy a country, it goes to occupy its language and its culture before its land. If we relate this to Crusoe, many people will ask about that reason pretending that there are no similarities between both. No, there are many similarities if we think deeply in that way. The colonizer usually says about himself that I am here to help, give food, and to free. It is the same with Crusoe who gives food to Friday in order to keep him under his control. In addition, using the pronoun "I" and portraying the narrator himself as the author is the way to teach the west how to be superior people who always control and never be controlled of others specially in Crusoe. Crusoe talked to several kinds of people from different cultures which emphasizes the idea of being a social man who needs the others in his life; but the question is how did he communicate with those people and why did he deal with them in different ways and tongues?! It was clear that we did not mention any declaration that this paper is about Reader Response Theory on Robinson Crusoe but not on every issue in this novel. From the previous speech, the reader, as we are sure, became eager to know more about language used in this novel, so this paper will apply this theory on the side of language. Therefore, Crusoe controlled his language as a narrator, a master, and a normal man who is a part of a group to convince the reader of his miserable life, as he said.

Reader Response Theory:

It is a of theory that focuses on the reader and his/her experience of a literary work. (en.wikipeda.org, n.d.). In other words: "The Reader is no more Passive". This theory is the easiest one because it allows the reader to express his opinions in every part of the literary work without borders. Of course, there is nothing was born as it is, so this theory was developed until it have assumptions and methodology.

Bressler (1994:47-48) cited that Plato asserts that human beings cannot control their feelings, so that they would like to participate in everything that affects their emotions. Also Aristotle said that everything should arouse the audiences' pity and fear. Rosenblatt asserts that the reader and the text should participate each other to produce the meaning (The Transactional Experience).. I think that in Frankenstein, written by Marry Shelley, women were not passive because if we apply this theory on it, we find that the readers could be women who think and respond to every idea they read, so captain Walton's sister was not passive at all except because she did not reply to her brother's messages. To sum up, people participate with their emotions in many things they witness but by the way they like. Regarding to the literary works, the reader should be no more passive; he/she have to respond to every line he read. These were the most important developments for this theory.

— Again Bressler (1994:50-51) put some assumptions that at the end take us to the result that the text need an intellectual reader to give it meaning. The first one says that: "the reader + the text = meaning." This is what we meant by the intellectual reader who gives meaning for the text because if the text is not read, it has no meaning of value. Then the following questions: Who manipulate the other, the text or the reader, or vice versa? Who is the reader? And are there various kinds of readers? Who is the author? And what is his/ her role? What is the reading process? To illustrate the previous question, I ask you, reader, to think of what I said. If you do well, you could get what is meant by them, so the message is received. Anyhow, sometimes we find that the text attracts its reader or anyone who is not willing to read this book and in that time he/she will like to. Another important part in the reading process is the reader himself and the way he contact and interact with the text. Since everyone has own philosophy of life, the text is interpreted as the reader see it. The role of the reader is to give the meaning to every single word in the text.

— According to the methodology, Bressler (1994:51-53) stated that the reader-response critics could be divided into three groups. The first one says that the reader must be an active participant in the creation of the meaning. As we mentioned before that "the reader + the text = meaning" and we did not say "the meaning" because every reader can give the meaning he likes according to his own thoughts, culture, and even religion. The second one is that Some readers may respond to something in the text in a bizarre or personal way. It is similar to the previous, but has some different elements that depend on the writer himself. We may find some readers judge on the text and its content according to the