Readership

[jbor]

While I agree that it is never possible for a reader to possess the "full
meaning" of a work, this is equally so for the writer. It's that concept of
"full meaning" which is the phantom, one of the fallacies of logocentrism.

The biographical anecdote explaining why Joyce included that "Come in" in
_Finnegans Wake_ is actually an interpretation (Joyce's) of what the author
intended, or meant, by including that particular phrase in his text ("Joyce
left it in because ... "). And once a reader becomes aware of that
particular piece of information, she or he is able to "get it" too, as much
as Joyce himself believed he had "got it".

Thus, the example doesn't support the conclusions at all. It's a strange
argument.  

Even when a Dadaist or surrealist writer simply cuts words, phrases,
symbols, images etc from different sources, pastes them all together
randomly and then offers the collage or transcription up to an audience as
an artistic or literary "work", the reader can still "get" that that's what
he or she has done, and hazard a guess as to why.

esoteric adj. 1. restricted to or intended for an enlightened minority,
especially because of abstruseness or obscurity  2. difficult to understand,
abstruse  3. not openly admitted, private

The first definition smacks of elitism: only the chosen ones, or "Elect" can
truly "understand". The second definition is the most apt, but it doesn't
require that the texts are unable to be understood by the reader, only that
they are *difficult* to understand. The third definition is least
applicable, because the texts have been published for readers to read, are
by definition "public", not private.

best


on 9/8/02 10:13 PM, Tim Strzechowski at dedalus204 at attbi.com wrote:

> 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. [...]

> 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.