Pornography & Technics & Death

[Paul Mackin]

I should have said in connection with the previous post that I know full
well that as a general propostion writing is as much as writEE
(reader) thing as a writER thing. Thought I'd found what might be
construed as a counter example or exception which is what gives the point
any saliency it might have. (saliency, what saliency)

			P.

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Paul Mackin wrote:

> The MENTION of pornography--that most disgraceful of all technologies--as
> a stand-in for writing and analysis and even as a methphor for ALL
> technology as used for CONTROL particularly for colonialistic-type
> control but also for control in general seems clear enough to me anyway. 
> But here's a question: If we accept the metaphor must we not also direct
> sharp focus on the fact that AS WRITING p-text necessarily stands directly
> implicated as a control process. Can we further therefore entertain the
> possibility that such sexually arousing descriptions as in the coming
> together of Slothrop and Bianca actually PORTRAYS this controlling and
> colonializing process as regards the author reader relationship? A nice 
> way to tie together porno as use and porno as mention. Or maybe a
> not-so-nice way. A thought anyway.
> 
> It may be said that the reader is always the one in control--is free not
> to interpret said scenes as porno. Yes, like the Indians with bows and
> arrows are free to reject gunfire.
> 
> 		P.
> 
>