Readership (was ohne Betreff, but I don't know what that means)

[Tim Strzechowski]

I suppose, although "bottom" has always bugged me (pardon the pun). The "it"
(which was originally used by Doug and Rob, as I recall) is that
*comprehensive understanding* of all that a literary work has to offer, so
that a reader/critic can (if need be) neatly dissect and label the artifact.
My contention is that no such understanding of a work of literary merit can
be achieved, and to think that one possesses the "full meaning" of a work is
committing a disservice to the endless possibilities of interpretation that
a literary work offers.

But perhaps I preach to the choir.

A while back, Doug wrote the following:

"I don't think any critic can "get ahead" of [Pynchon] -- he wrote the book,
his critics come later, none of them have the insight into the text that
Pynchon had, and none of them ever will.  That's not to say that the critics
don't have interesting things to say, because sometimes they do.  But I
don't think they'll get to the bottom of what P wrote, and I don't think
they'll ever get anything like a "comprehensive" understanding of his texts"

I'm reminded of a charming anecdote of James Joyce, who was dictating
portions of _Finnegans Wake_ to Beckett because his eyesight had gotten so
bad.  At one point in the dictation, someone knocked at the door and Joyce
said, "Come in."  Later, when Beckett was reading back to JJ what he had
transcribed, Joyce asked, "What's that 'Come in' part?"  Beckett replied,
"Well, you said it."  And Joyce left it in the final text because, as he
said, "I'm quite willing to accept coincidence as a collaborator."

When literature offers the potential for such personal factors in the
writing process, it matters little if you're a college sophomore, Harold
Bloom, et al. In this regard, the author IS "ahead of his readers" and will
always remain so, for the author has that special relationship with his work
that none of us ever will (I hear a Luther Vandross song coming on). Not
that all esoteric passages in Pynchon are based on such haphazardry and
coincidence, but the act of writing / creation allows the author a certain
privelege of knowledge that readers/critics cannot achieve.

Tim


Otto said:

>>I don't know what *it* should be in this context other than the already
mentioned "bottom". The importance of literature of this kind lies in
freeing the author, the critic and the reader from the "mental hostage" (I'm
quoting David Morris here) of religion, history and other external reference
points Western logocentrism is based upon.