KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Sherwood Anderson'a Okur-Odaklı Yaklaşım: Death İn The Woods

A Reader- Response Approach To Sherwood Anderson: Death In The Woods

Yasemin Güniz Sertel
Sayfa
183–190
Yayın Tarihi
2018-08-07
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, she does gain significance after her death, when her dead body becomes a text to be perceived and contrastingly interpreted from the different perspectives of different people.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:With its revolutionary new styles, modernist literature assigns to the reader a new role and responsibility which obliges him to be an active participant in the understanding and production of meaning in the text; a role explained mainly by the reader-response theory.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In general, the short story takes the reader to the insignificant life of a woman victimized by the patriarchal society.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, she does gain significance after her death, when her dead body becomes a text to be perceived and contrastingly interpreted from the different perspectives of different people.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Reader-response criticism · metafiction

Özet

With its revolutionary new styles, modernist literature assigns to the reader a new role and responsibility which obliges him to be an active participant in the understanding and production of meaning in the text; a role explained mainly by the reader-response theory. The following article entitled “A Reader-Response Approach to Sherwood Anderson: Death in the Woods” presents an interpretation of the American writer Sherwood Anderson‟s short story Death in theWoods in the light of reader-response criticism which prompts the reader for his active participation in reading a text. In general, the short story takes the reader to the insignificant life of a woman victimized by the patriarchal society. However, she does gain significance after her death, when her dead body becomes a text to be perceived and contrastingly interpreted from the different perspectives of different people.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sertel, Y. G. (2018). Sherwood Anderson'a Okur-Odaklı Yaklaşım: Death İn The Woods. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 183–190. https://ajindex.com/articles/1574207

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Anderson, S. (1969). “Death in the Woods”, The Penguin Book of American Short Stories, (Ed:James Cochrane), Penguin Books, London. Barthes, R. (1988). “The Death of the Author”, Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader, (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Berger, J. (1998). “Ways of Seeing” Women in Culture: A Woman‟s Studies Anthology. (Ed. Lucinda Joy Peach), Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Malden, Massachussets, Oxford. Brooker, P. & Selden, R. & Widdowson, P. (1997). A Reader‟s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, Prentice Hall, London, New York, Toronto: Prentice Hall. Colquitt, C. (1986). “The Reader as Voyeur: ComplicitousTransformations in „Death in the Woods‟.” Modern Fiction Studies. 32.2, 175-190.
  2. Hirsch, E.D., (1988). “Faulty Perspectives”. Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader. (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Iser, W. (1988). “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach” Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader. (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Lawry, J.S. (1959). “Death in the Woods and the Artist‟s Self in Sherwood Anderson”. PMLA 74.3, 306-311.
  3. Lodge, D. (1988). Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader, Longman, London. May, C. (2002). The Short Story – The Reality of Artifice, Routledge, NewYork. Murfin, R. C. (1994). “Reader Response Criticism and „The Dead‟”,The Dead – James Joyce. (Ed. Daniel R. Schwarz), St. Martin‟s Press,
  4. Boston, New York. Scheick, W.J. (1974). “Compulsion Toward Repetition: Sherwood Anderson‟s Death in the Woods”. Studies in Short Fiction 11.1, 141-146.
  5. Scholes, R. (1980).
  6. Fabulation and Metafiction, University of Illionis Press,
  7. London. Zanger, J. (1990). “Cold Pastoral: Sherwood Anderson‟!s Death in the Woods”. The Old Northwest 15.1, 19-28.
  8. Anderson, S. (1969). “Death in the Woods”, The Penguin Book of American Short Stories, (Ed:James Cochrane), Penguin Books, London. Barthes, R. (1988). “The Death of the Author”, Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader, (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Berger, J. (1998). “Ways of Seeing” Women in Culture: A Woman‟s Studies Anthology. (Ed. Lucinda Joy Peach), Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Malden, Massachussets, Oxford. Brooker, P. & Selden, R. & Widdowson, P. (1997). A Reader‟s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, Prentice Hall, London, New York, Toronto: Prentice Hall. Colquitt, C. (1986). “The Reader as Voyeur: ComplicitousTransformations in „Death in the Woods‟.” Modern Fiction Studies. 32.2, 175-190.
  9. Hirsch, E.D., (1988). “Faulty Perspectives”. Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader. (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Iser, W. (1988). “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach” Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader. (Ed. David Lodge), Longman, London. Lawry, J.S. (1959). “Death in the Woods and the Artist‟s Self in Sherwood Anderson”. PMLA 74.3, 306-311.
  10. Lodge, D. (1988). Modern Criticism and Theory – A Reader, Longman, London. May, C. (2002). The Short Story – The Reality of Artifice, Routledge, NewYork. Murfin, R. C. (1994). “Reader Response Criticism and „The Dead‟”,The Dead – James Joyce. (Ed. Daniel R. Schwarz), St. Martin‟s Press,
  11. Boston, New York. Scheick, W.J. (1974). “Compulsion Toward Repetition: Sherwood Anderson‟s Death in the Woods”. Studies in Short Fiction 11.1, 141-146.
  12. Scholes, R. (1980).
  13. Fabulation and Metafiction, University of Illionis Press,
  14. London. Zanger, J. (1990). “Cold Pastoral: Sherwood Anderson‟!s Death in the Woods”. The Old Northwest 15.1, 19-28.