SPHERE to Eternity

[rj]

tf
> Not overt, not at all, perhaps? But I think the idea is that
> they are not overt references, but rather indirect
> references that are involved in a sub-textual story that may
> have little relevance (in fact, as in the case with geli for
> example, may have nothing really to do with the fictional
> character, the plot, the themes of the various internal (non
> sub-textual plots). This is where get lost sometimes. Often
> the sub-textual story is not there for me, I don't have the
> magic-eye or whatever, the magic-ear to hear the echoes or I
> lack the schema or personal experience with the history or
> use what ever "reader response" theory you like, and as in
> the case with Geli here, and sometimes the echo or whatever
> is too faint and the idea too jarring for me to accept, as
> in the case for Geli. I am not the best person to explain
> these ideas,

Terrance, this is exactly it. You feel that because you don't see the
particular subtext operating then the lack is with you. This is not
right. Your reading and understanding of Mr P's works is as extensive
and insightful, and certainly as valid, as anybody's, the published
critics included, as you have demonstrated again and again on this
discussion forum. This is what I see as the problem with exclusivist
critical models such as Mr Hollander's: the general reader is
disenfranchised, they are left scratching their head and wondering why
they don't "get it". Go with your own instincts. An open mind and a
clear head. Keep cool but care.

best