THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTHOR AND AUDIENCE: CASE STUDY OF A YOUNG-ADULT AUTHOR AND A STUDENT AUDIENCE

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Curriculum and Instruction

by Keitha Ilene Phares B. A., Belhaven College, 1977 M. Ed., Reformed Theological Seminary, 1986 May 2002

Copyright 2002 Keitha Ilene Phares All rights reserved

ii

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my mother, Mildred Eileen Gunter Phares, who, with five children still at home, went back to college to become a teacher; my father, Donald Jones Phares, who served for many years on the local public school board; my grandfather, Albert Oscar Gunter, who was a graduate of Texas State Normal and taught school for a time in the tiny Louisiana town of Merryville; Dr. Norman E. Harper, whose vision it was to establish the Graduate School of Education at Reformed Theological Seminary and whose Philosophical Foundations course taught me the biblical underpinnings of Christian education; and above all, to Jesus Christ Our Lord: “For of Him and through Him and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11: 36)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank, first of all, the participants who made this case study possible: Rick Norman, the author of Fielder’s Choice, who graciously and unhesitatingly gave of his time and resources to help me in this project; Thelma, Chatrick, Bob, Goose, and Loki, the five high school students who willingly cooperated; and Judith Faust, the editor of Fielder’s Choice, who took time out of her busy schedule to answer my questions. I would also like to thank Liz Parkhurst at August House Publishers, who granted me permission to use portions of Fielder’s Choice in this dissertation; my committee members—Nancy Nelson, Earl Cheek, Margaret Stewart, Pam Monroe, and Margaret Parker—who have been so helpful and encouraging; and my fellow doctoral students at Louisiana State University, whose friendship and support have been invaluable. Special thanks must go to Nancy Nelson, my major professor, who suggested the idea of this case study and who has helped me every step of the way.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION........................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 THE PUZZLE OF THE AUTHOR-AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP ......................1 Importance of the Author-Audience Relationship................................................2 Young Adult Literature: Identified by Audience..................................................7 Impetus for the Study..........................................................................................11 Brief Description of the Study ............................................................................14 Research Questions.............................................................................................15 Potential Contributions of the Study...................................................................16 2 HISTORICAL, THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND AUTHORIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF AUDIENCE ..............................................................17 Historical, Theoretical, and Empirical Treatments.............................................17 Published Authors’ Descriptions of Audience....................................................49 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................53 3 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................55 Participants..........................................................................................................55 Setting .................................................................................................................62 The Author’s Corpus and Focused Texts ...........................................................63 Methods of Data Collection................................................................................85 Methods of Data Analysis...................................................................................93 Analysis Codes ...................................................................................................95 4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTHOR RICK NORMAN AND HIS AUDIENCE .....................................................................................105 Rick Norman’s Conception of the Audience of Fielder’s Choice....................105 Editor’s Conception of the Audience of Fielder’s Choice ...............................116 Audience Responses to Fielder’s Choice .........................................................119 Relationship Between Author’s Intentions and Students’ Responses ..............157 Summary of Results..........................................................................................182 5 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PUZZLE OF THE AUTHOR-AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP.......................................................184 Rick Norman’s Conception of Audience..........................................................184 Voice(s): Students’ Responses to the Voice of the Author, Author’s Responses to the Voices of the Students ......................................................192 Purposeful, Intentional, “Point-Driven” Writing: No Second Chance .............195

v

Social Dynamics Among and Between the Participants...................................199 Conclusions.......................................................................................................202 Contributions of the Study................................................................................203 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................204 APPENDIXES A GUIDES FOR AUTHOR AND EDITOR INTERVIEWS..................................215 B INTERACTIVE INTERVIEW OBSERVATION CHART ................................219 C OUTLINE OF RICK NORMAN’S PERCEPTION OF HIS AUDIENCE .........220 D CODING AND OUTLINING OF STUDENTS’ BOOK NOTES, JOURNAL RESPONSES, AND INTERVIEW RESPONSES ........................221 E OUTLINE OF INTERACTIVE INTERVIEW....................................................251 F OUTLINE OF THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS OF THE INTERACTIVE INTERVIEW ..........................................................252 G AUGUST HOUSE PERMISSION ......................................................................254 VITA ......................................................................................................................................255

vi

ABSTRACT How does author relate to audience? This overarching question guided a case study focused on author Rick Norman and his novel Fielder’s Choice. Specific questions were (1) What was, and is, this author’s conception of his audience for the book? (2) How do members of the audience—specifically five high school students—respond to the novel? (3) How do the audience’s responses relate to the author’s stated intentions? Data came from the following sources: interviews with the author, the student readers, and the editor of the book; students’ written responses to the book and the author’s written reactions to those responses; an interactive dialogue between the author and the students; records and documents provided by the author; and reviews of the book. Data analysis employed Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) comparative method and Spradley’s (1979) developmental research sequence. Findings include the following: (1) This author saw his audience, which he portrayed as multi-faceted and dynamic, through the lens of self. He attributed to his audience his own characteristics when he originally planned and wrote the book and also when he talked about it ten years later. Self was at the center of his generic audience as well as his defined audience. (2) The audience of readers in this study varied in the extent to which they connected with the author. Most of them did, however, speculate about his intentions relative to the content as well as to text features. (3) Author intention and audience response did not always match. When mismatches were revealed in written and oral exchanges, subsequent dialogue between author and audience was directed to mutual understanding. The author wanted to learn what there was in his writing that led the readers to unintended meanings, and the readers wanted to learn why the author wrote as he did.

vii

This study, focused on author-audience relationship, fits into a growing body of work examining connections between reading and writing. Its uniqueness lies in its dual focus on both author intention and audience response and in the opportunities provided for author and audience to meet to discuss intentions and responses.

viii