Readership

[Tim Strzechowski]

From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>

> 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.

Maybe.  I wouldn't say "equally so," however, because the author certainly
has an advantage.  That's not to say the author knows *all* meanings of
*all* things within the text, but s/he has the advantage. The best that the
rest of us (readers) can do is accept the text at face value and make what
we can of it, and if it's meaningful in some way, bravo for us. Of course,
there is the possibility of un-intentional meanings incorporated by an
author into a text (e.g. you write a novel that happens to use a lot of
color imagery, but you never really intended to do that, and I read your
novel and point out, "Rob, there's a lot of color imagery here," much to
your honest surprise). I suppose that's where the phantoms lie . . .

>
> 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".
>

But don't confuse the historical incident itself with my anecdotal retelling
of it.  Whether or not I'm aware of the "story" behind why the "Come in"
phrase is included makes little difference to whether Joyce "gets it"
equally with his reader (Rob said: "she or he is able to "get it" too, as
much as Joyce himself believed he had "got it".). It's in the text, and we
are welcome (invited?) to grant that phrase significant meaning to our
reading if we wish. And what if, not knowing the story behind its inclusion,
we determine that it possesses significance to the text? Does the fact that
it began as "coincidence" negate its ability to ever hold meaning to a
reader?

>
> 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.

I'm not clear why you're including this in your post. Random surreality as
per your example can certainly function as a work of art, and if the modus
operandi for the artist was mere chance, the reader can certainly "get"
that. But readers may also identify meanings and patterns beyond what the
author intended, right?  And each reader judges the value of these patterns
and meanings differently, right? And all discourse surrounding these
patterns and meanings can bring us to a closer understanding of *something*,
even if it's not the artist's intent, right?  BUT, none of us have the
complete understanding (sure, we're closer, but not complete) because we do
not share with the artist the privelege of knowledge (that the work in
question was created by chance in the first place).

I hope I've addressed what may have been your point.
>
> 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.
>

The second definition was the one I'd intended to best convey my meaning (I
said: "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