I was a sight to behold—tall, distinguished, tall—and admired by my colleagues as a gentleman scholar.

But looks aren't everything: not everyone embraced my idea that literary texts can have an important impact on the reader—and likewise that the reader's reception of the text is a valuable source of insight. Still, I didn't have all-out enemies like some critics did (Jean-Paul Sartre, anyone? Jacques Derrida?).

My disputes had intellectual stakes, but they weren't arguments over cute young undergraduates or Marxist-inspired terrorism or terrorist obscurantism.

Comrades

Hans Robert Jauss

Hans was one of those "challenging" friends—as in, he always nudged me to question my own ideas. And we had many a healthy debate over not-so-healthy meals of Kartoffelsalat and Sauerbraten.

Hans was fascinated by how readers have responded to literature throughout time. His "Reception Theory" plus my "theory of aesthetic response" were like Brad and Angelina—smokin'. (Unfortunately, "Hansgang" doesn't have the same ring as "Brangelina," so we had to ditch it.)

Hans and I were founding members of this research group called "Poetik and Hermeneutik" (Poetics and Hermeneutics), which was as intense as it sounds. Most importantly, we were "on the same page" that reading was a dynamic activity that stimulates the consciousness of the reader. Objectivity was out; coproducing meaning was in.

A.C. Thiselton

He may not be a household name, but he did write a VIB—very important book—which has gone through multiple editions and can even be found in paperback (don't bother looking for it at the airport gift shop, though). A.C. "liked" some of my ideas, which is to say he offered tempered praise. He was down with the whole reader interpretation thing as long as it didn't snowball into a coup d'etat whereby readers would prevail over critics in determining what a book meant. In other words: he liked the idea of reader response on a leash.

Rivals

Stanley Fish

This cranky theorist and editorialist liked my work... and then he didn't. But what makes Fish's attention worth mentioning is that most critics and theorists of his generation ignored me completely. Reader Response just isn't very hip, because in this theory, it's really just you and the book. No Marxist outrage. No gender performance. No power relations.

Like I said: just you and the book.

Now, Fish did say something about how my book was more purchased than read, but what academic is in a position to complain about book sales? At the same time, Fish questioned some of the assumptions of my Reader Response Theory: he agreed that (I paraphrase) texts are open to multiple meanings, but not like a gazillion different readings.

Stephen D. Moore

Hater alert! Stephen's not the first guy to get all steamed up about biblical interpretation, but he took one look at my Reader Response Theory and condemned it to the underworld. He basically insisted that my whole "it's between the reader and the book" situation did not fly when it came to the Bible. Apparently, you need some historical background to appreciate the Bible. "Real" Bible scholars, says Steve, have historical knowledge.

William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley

Oh, the headaches this duo has caused me.

I want to know where it's written that literary criticism has to be objective. I mean, literature itself isn't objective, so why should literary criticism be? Now, I wouldn't consider these two to be rivals, but their ideas don't exactly "flow" with mine, and in fact, their work has often been seen as the polar opposite of mine. These two gave the reader NO LOVE, going so far as to suggest that empowering the reader destroys the text. Drama, right?