Reading and writing

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
Cc: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Reading and writing
>
>
> > >
> > > Please, Otto, tell us poor Molly Bloomers, in plane words,  please,
why
> > > this is absolutely correct or how it makes sense to you.
> > >
> >
> > Because it's a simple scientific fact. No big thing at all. Paul's words
are
> > very plane.
>
>
> But I can't understand him and you can. Can you "translate", please?
>

"All writing is indeed representation, which means
all writing is fictional, ie a construct."

For me it's the basic assumption of  (post)-modern Lit-Crit. But if I would
try to explain in Lit-Crit terms, feeding it up with some quotes I would be
accused of using jargon.

The outside world cannot be adequately described by words because of this
signifier/significate-thing. It's that what strips the holy books of their
holiness, declares that myths are just fiction in the end. I think the
Greeks were pretty much aware of the fact that their whole pantheon was only
dramatic personnel, good for a whole lot of stories of adultery and murder.
That's why I've read the second part of "Mythologies" by Roland Barthes in
one afternoon but will never waste time on Hillary Clinton's "Living
History."

Furthermore I don't believe Terrance when he says that he doesn't understand
it. I simply don't believe that because of those literally thousands of his
posts I've loved to read. He says he wants no booklists but sometimes this
is just what's necessary. To understand writing you've got to read. I've
said that before on this list and did get the answer: to understand reading
you've got to write. That's what Pynchon and all those postmodernists are
doing.

Otto