In Fish's, Is There a Text in This Class, Fish describes in detail the Reader-Response Theory. The part of this paper that especially intrigued me was the idea that the reader's meaning comes from a context in the form of experience, and because of this there are endless "obvious" meanings to one text. He explains why it is impossible to think about reader-response without the reader having any context. "It is impossible even to think of a sentence independently of a context, and when we are asked to consider a sentence for which no context has been specified, we will automatically hear it in the context in which it has been most often encountered". What may be an "obvious" analysis of a text may not be so obvious. There are endless amounts of "obvious" ways to try and interpret a text. While some literary theorists may say that the subjectivity of the reader is harmful towards reaching a "conclusion" to a text, it seems apparent that within a text there can be no absolute answer. When we try and limit interpretation of a text, we limit the many possibilities of what the text could become.
The questions that I would like to discuss is, how can we objectively analyze a text without allowing our past experiences to bombard our brains while we read? Is objectivity truly necessary in order to reach a reasonable response to a text, or does our natural subjectivity help us understand a text more accurately?