Theatre/theater

[Lycidas at worldnet.att.net]

Thomas Colin wrote:
> 
> It would not be heresy. It is actually the first reasonable thing one should
> think of. But, again, it does not seem likely. And what if it was a typo?
> Would it really cancel the whole discussion. I don't think so. However, I am
> not supporting the kind of typo-reading that McHoul and Willis do in their
> *Writing Pynchon*, where they undertake a systematic study of typos as
> Freudian slips or something, with much loose Derrida and plenty of freaky
> S/Z. It is not that the idea is ridiculous in itself (quiet the opposite,
> actually), but, fact is, it seems to lead absolutely nowhere. So, my opinion
> is: this is the text we have, this is the text we read, period.
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


I was just checking McHale's *Constructing Postmodernism* to
see if he addressed this topic in his reply to McHoul and
Wills. Nope, but as you say, "this is the text we read,
period." Which do we want it to be? I want it to be a
clue--a deliberate authorial alternative spelling.  I think
there is good evidence to support this reading.