by ROBERT TANNEHILL This comment continues the conversation with Gary Yamasaki which began with his post on the ideological plane of point of view. I recognize the distinction that Yamasaki makes in his rejoinder post between the ideological plane and the ideological “matrixes” of the implied author and the characters. If one wished to do a thorough analysis of the ideological plane of a work, I suppose one would include the ideological matrix of the implied author and also those of the main characters.
However, at the end of his post Yamasaki raises the issue of “through whose perspective an audience is being led to experience the action.” This, I think, is the ideological perspective of the implied author, which is the perspective of the work as a whole as a complex of interacting parts, dynamically arranged. This ideological perspective is clearer and firmer in some works than in others. It may be chiefly represented by one character or by aspects of several characters. It may challenge the reader to do his or her own thinking, and the reflective reader retains the freedom to agree or disagree with the implied author.
PERSPECTIVE CRITICISM 
A quick note as to the very last point. The implied reader will not disagree with the implied author. Hence, the implied reader never engages in a hermeneutic of suspicion. Hence, I like the term “the reflective reader.” The reflective reader can go where the implied reader never goes. Both readers, I think, are needed for a full reading. One must be able to express what the work itself wants to say (the implied read/author), but one also must maintain the right to critique wat the work itself wants to say (the reflective reader).
Please forgive the typos . I typed the last comment on my iPad, and I have not yet mastered the virtual keyboard.