GRGR (15): Good & Evil (was Enzian...)

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

I'll probably piss some people off with my statement about
reading process. I'm not saying that good theories don't
exist. There are great theories on this subject, but
consider the complexities of reading a novel like GR. What
is going on in the mind? There are lots of theories of what
goes on in the mind when a person reads a simple sentence,
or simple directions--what is sometimes called "efferent"
reading (reading for information), but try to imagine a
theory that can account for the complexities, the aesthetic,
linguistic, mental complexities involved in reading a novel
like GR. This in part, what many postmodern theories attempt
to do. To simplify matters they reduce the reader to a
character. To me, this flies in the face of their own
project, the rehabilitation of the reader. 

"Terrance F. Flaherty" wrote:
> 
> Lorentzen / Nicklaus wrote:
> >
> > Terrance schrieb:
> >
> > > Also, I think the
> > > reader must distance himself from Slothrop to make any sense
> > > of the novel.
> >
> >   Please explicate this very strong (- "any"!) thesis! KFL
> 
> Oh boy, did it again, take out "ANY."
> 
> The reader must distance himself from Slothrop to make sense
> of the novel.
> 
> This is the direct opposite of what many postmodern theories
> argue about GR. Many postmodern readings equate Slothrop
> with the reader, I think this is helpful to a point, but
> flawed and has more to do with theories of reading (note, I
> contend that to date no one has discovered, or articulated a
> sound theory of the reading process) than GR and postmodern
> fiction in general.