Oh Molly!

[Cyrus]

David Morris wrote:

> 
>  
>
>>[Terrance:] It doesn't describe anything. It's is writing, but it doesn't stand
>>between the reader and whatever has been described because it doesn't
>>describe anything. 
>>    
>>
>
>No.  It generates something form "nothing."  But that nothing is formed from
>all sorts of shadows inside the brain of the writer which then generates the
>"something" in the brain of the reader.
>

If you will allow me, I would like to further confuse the matter.

I treat every text as an autonomous entity. It might represent 
something, or not. It might refer to fact or fiction, or both. But it 
does have something to say, even though it might not make much sense (or 
none at all, for that matter). The text does not stand in-between 
anything. It's a prostitute whose job is to go to bed with an undefined 
number of readers and interact with every single one of them. It doesn't 
have to describe anything. I'm not sure I would ever consider the notion 
of nothingness in this context, but if David is refering to an absence 
of meaning, he is right: this "nonsensical" text, when interacting with 
a reader's mind, does indeed generate "something", even if that's only 
some sort of elusive feeling prompted by the words chosen, their sound 
and maybe their similarity with other words more easily recognizable by 
the reader.

And in this context, Otto's German overtones of "wabe" and "ausgabe" is 
totally legitimate.

Cyrus