Is it foolish to wonder how one goes about writing something on Wolfgang Iser? How much credit to we give to the man himself? Along with Gadamer (a direct influence), Iser's work spelled out clearer than any other's the modern prejudices of things such as an 'auteur theory' or the cult of the literary (or filmic, etc.) genius (see: the critique of Baumgartner and Kantian Aesthetics). Yet we don't seem to be satisfied with dealing with the mere work as we interact with it... we continue to refer back to the 'genius' behind the work. Although a claim like the 'death of the author' overlooks the fact that the author also interprets his work, it seems most of us are stuck on the other side of the spectrum, fascinated with the author himself, unable to properly separate the work from the figure who penned it. But when authorial intent or authorial self-interpretation of his work begins to carry the same weight as other interpretations and loses its exclusive claim to 'correctness' (ie, when the possibility of a traditional epistemology becomes problematic -- but note this doesn't imply the possibility of truth is problematic), there is no more need to continually refer to Iser himself.
Without actually thinking about the importance of Iser's work on all writing and all interpretation of said writing, I had quickly jotted down the following:
In my humble opinion, the greatest literary theorist of the past century has died. It seems surreal to think that I had just stumbled upon his and Jauss' work last year, was currently midway through his latest book 'How To Do Theory' and literally minutes away from his home in Southern Germany when he died. It was this year that I had a great deal more time to read literature than I had in the past, so I had decided to read literary theory to accompany my novels. Iser and the Konstanz School manner of Rezeptionsästhetik was most compelling to me, largely to due to its compatibility with (and foundation in) Gadamer's hermeneutics. The question concerns me: Did Iser develop the natural consequences of philosophical hermeneutics or did he 'methodologize' Gadamer for the purpose of literary theory? Regardless of the answer, Iser had been able to interpret Gadamer in areas broader than he might have imagined and prove the lasting importance in all areas of serious thought. In Iser, the 'fusion of horizons' and 'hermeneutical circle' were central to our conversation, call & response, answer and question, with a work. Iser had, without a doubt, most capably brought the importance of philosophical hermeneutics to the study of literature (and, on a personal level, had a significant impact on my own thoughts on literature). Admittedly less flashy or brash than his French (or American) peers, my feeling is that his (understated) influence on literary studies will resist faddishness and continue to grow much larger than it already has.
So how is one supposed to properly celebrate Iser's life? One celebrates the author or laments his passing. How odd would it seem to celebrate the origin and lifespan and impact of Iser's work and lament the end of any further possibility of future work without the celebration of Iser, the individual, himself? But one starts to sound like the undergrad student attempting his best Derrida impersonation by 'deconstructing' the question on the exam that tells him to write an essay on Derrida. Has this question hit upon my concern? Perhaps Iser is pointing out that a degree of pragmatic methodology (or references to the author which can naturally open up the sketchy auratic exclusivity of authorial intent) is necessary to get things done, to write a tribute.
I admit, many loose ends on my part. I'll end by expressing my wish to, in the future, further learn from my own interactions with Iser's work.
