MDMD: Something that could be mistaken for a real post. Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion

[Roberto No Mass Du Run Du Run]

Can objective reading be possible? 

Of a novel? No, of course not. 

Suppose we put different texts on a spectrum ranging from Objective
reading to Subjective. 

Can objective reading be possible? 

Of a specific and concise scientific formula or a particular and precise
recipe for Cream of Chicken Soup? 

Maybe or maybe not, but reading a soup can recipe or a scientific
formula or a phone book, while it obviously involves   some of what
reading a novel like M&D involves (i.e. in terms of the physical
operations of the organs--eye, brain), seems to be closer to  objective
reading than reading novels or poems. 

Furthermore, I would say there are novels, just as there are recipes and
sculptures and paintings, that invite a more objective or subjective
reading stance. 

Also, there are and have been approaches to literature, or more
generally to art, or trends in literature or art, which also invite
readers to assume a more objective or subjective stance. These critical
or aesthetic trends and theories may or may not coincide with or have a
reciprocal relationship with what novelists and artists are doing at the
time. For example, there is no reason why a Freudian literary critic
can't  apply Freudian theories and ideas to Shakespeare's Hamlet and
Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP or why Postmodern critical theories
can't be applied to Madonna and Milton.  

Andy Warhol & Homer says, "Hmmmmm Hmmmmm Cream of Chicken Soup."

How does reading happen? I don't know and I don't think anyone does.
There are lots of wonderful theories about the reading process. There
are hundreds of theories about how the brain processes language and
symbols and so forth, but they're all very muddy and as long as people
keep insisting on talking about the brain as if it were only the latest
mechanical metaphor for out latest mechanical obsessions we'll probably
never find out. 


The reader of any text decodes each symbol and word in the text by
searching for clues in the text and by searching in his/her brain--
drawing on experience with the text being read, other texts, anything at
all (including one's mother and her little black cat). 

Obviously, there are some things that go on in the mind of the reader
when reading a  soup can recipe that are exactly the same as what goes
on in the brain when  reading a big fat novel like War and Peace,  but
there are very big differences too. I tend to think that there is a
spectrum. 

If reading a soup can recipe is closer to the objective reading  end of
the spectrum and reading War And Peace is closer to the Subjective
reading end of the spectrum, we might say reading a Play like Hamlet is
closer to reading War and Peace than reading The New York Times. 

Does this make sense? 

Is this the way people all over the world think about different texts
and their utility, function, reader objectivity/subjectivity?  Is this
how people have always looked at different texts? 

Or is this way of looking at texts, some as works of art, some as
information or direction, some as news, some as entertainment, some as
more objective when read and other more subjective, something Modern or
Post-modern? 

Paul N was talking about the function of an author and I know there are
quite a few people that won't like what Foucault says about what an
author is and how applying the St. Jerome school of literary criticism
may not be very useful or appropriate tp Pynchon....but anyway...it's
simply another way to bring out the richness of texts and it might help
us stay on track. 

This all gets me to thinking about the Subjunctive. That's what I'm
working on these days, Foucault and the Subjunctive in Feminist Mexican
Fiction.

Judy Panetta wrote:
> 
> 
> OK. So, this exchange touched a chord that resonates often on our coma-list:
> the subjective vs. the objective. What is the individual's encounter with
> the text exclusive of, well anything but the experience of the reader at
> that moment. I'm thinking of that very interesting exchange btwn Terrance
> and Paul N. a few weeks ago. The subjective approach was disparaged as I
> recall: the novel as it relates to my mother's little black cat. Hmmm. Yes
> that response would hardly be insightful or helpful. However, one can be
> subjective without being self-indulgent. Consider: can objective reading be
> possible? I find objectivity a fallacy. Is history objective? Journalism?
> (Sorry.) Description is dependent on perception. Perception is riddled with
> variables - each uncommon to each individual and is therefore subjective.
> Save for some human universalities?
> 
> So...onward, M&D. The dog. The giant veggies. The more subtle and discreet
> inclusions. Are they rooted in history? Are these elements real to the novel
> or illusionary to the characters or something entirely different? The
> encyclopedic Pynchon...it must be real. I'm remembering the Museum of
> Jurassic Technology. That eclectic storefront museum exhibiting the wonders
> of the world - the curiosity chamber. Except that some of it is real and
> some of it isn't. What's the difference and why does it matter? Any
> thoughts?
> 
> So there. A post. Doesn't have that same voyeuristic quality without the
> lurkers.
>