That would be a long list….
Major Similarity: Both formalists and reader response critics ignore any hope of understanding the work through authorial intention. The author may be dead, and readers can’t talk to the author without a oujia board. Even if the author is alive, meaning is not restricted to authorial intent alone.
They tend to be different in what they focus on:
Formalism generally looks at form and structure and focus close reading there. For instance, if formalists were analyzing a sonnet they would ground their reading on details expected to appear structurally in that work. Where is the volta? How does the content shape itself to fit the volta? Is the sonnet Elizabethan or is it Petrarchan in its rhyme scheme? How does the tight turn in the final gemmel compress the statement? If Elizabethan, does the content of the quatrains match the conclusion of each quatrain? If Petrarchan, what effects come about from have an octave with so many repeated rhymes?
Reader response criticism looks at how audiences respond to a work differently in distinct settings and time periods. The oversimplification of reader response theory is to see it as being a bit solipsistic. Those opposed to reader response see it as claiming art functions is an inkblot test—a work doesn’t necessary mean anything until a reader looks at it and reacts. At its worst, reader response criticism is “anything goes” and “my-opinion-is-as-good-as-any-other.”
At its best, however, reader response criticism considers how the work is received by a variety of readers at different times. A work that has themes of nationalism will look quite different ten years before Hitler’s rise than one examined ten years after Hitler’s rise. The change in attitudes and connotations before and after that event means earlier readers will notice certain details. They will react in different ways.
However, those after such an event will read it another way. They will focus on and notice other details, and they will react quite differently. That’s not because reader #1 was “wrong” and reader #2 was “right.” It’s the interesting parts of a literary work change depending on the circumstances of the reader.
In some cases, individual readings may be quite idiosyncratic—but that doesn’t mean critics can ignore the reality of how audience reactions vary across time.
