Reading and writing

[Terrance]

Malignd wrote:
> 
> <<All writing is indeed representation, which means
> all writing is fictional, ie a construct.>>
> 
> All writing is "fictional"?  Writing doesn't exist?
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Do you mean, perhaps, all writing is "fiction"?  If
> all writing is fiction, then the term is entirely
> useless in discussing writing and can be dispensed
> with.  All writing is fiction; all writing is writing.
> 
> No argument there.


Paul Nightingale wrote:
  > 
  > I suppose very generally I'm using ideas that might be associated
with
  > discourse theory, new historicism, cultural materialism,
  > poststructuralism. I can't claim to be an expert in any of those
areas,
  > and any experts will probably burst out laughing at my eclectic
  > approach: it happens that I read something, find ideas interesting
and
  > useful, and don't always bother asking myself what the resulting mix
  > will look like to others. 

It looks like the resulting mix of some things you've read. Problem is,
you haven't understood a lot of the ideas and theories you are now
mixing up with your reading/writing of P's Foreword and so what it looks
like to others is a mixed up reading/writing. 

For example, the high/low culture idea is interesting. But what you
construct atop this idea (and opposition of pop cultures--Baedecker,
Detective Fiction, Song, Adorno ... etc & Co. ....) is a house of cards. 

Here comes the stiff wind.