MO's Visions on the Shuttle.GC

[Dave Monroe]

Terrance, might you want to fine-tune this statement of yours a bit?
"What TRP forms is a fictional complexity that is idiosyncratic and
cannot be understood by extra-textual reference."   Esp. as this post
goes on to cite at length an Encyclopedia Brittanica recap of Max Weber,
and one not long thereafter extensively extra-textually references
Gershom Scholem's extensive extra-textual referencing of those supremely
extra-textual reference texts of the kabballists?  Esp. as ANY
"understanding" will, necessarily, BE extra-textual, be beyond, in
excess of, the text at hand.  Like this post, like all the posts here
...

Can I justly, responsibly, charitably (re)read (rewrite?) you(r
extra-textual text) as "cannot be completely determined by extra-textual
references"?  Well, then, I'd agree, to some extent, though I'd question
that "extra-textual," "there is no outside-the-text," no(n)?  They're
ALL texts, of course, Gravity's Rainbow, The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, whatever.  And,
while you don't necessarily NEED to have read, say, Life against Death,
The White Goddess, V-2, whatever, in order to "understand" Gravity's
Rainbow (for example), there's a whole lot you might not "understand"
otherwise.  Of course, there's a whole lot you're not gonna ever
understand, no matter what, but ...

But this is the general condition of texts, of the textual, of
textuality, they of course do not, cannot, exist apart from, outside of,
other texts, those languages they manifest, for example, the histories
and literatures and literary histories and ... their "extra-textual"
intertexts, whether or not they, their authors, "intended" to do so or
not.  Intertexts a familiarity with, even an "understanding" of--say,
your very own always interesting intertexts--certainly does help one
"understand" a "fictional complexity" (now there's "jargon" for you ...)
such as Gravity's Rainbow.  Let me know ...