"He thinks he's hallucinating" m

[alice wellintown]

Itz your reading; your method of reading  makes it what it is. But
I've a small problem with the Reader when she asserts primacy and
disregards the Author and the Text to construct her Poem (Rosenblatt).
Long time ago, Rosenblatt, student of Dewey and James, taught us that
extreme reader response, and I would say that ignoring the marks on
the page, arranged by the author in a conventional way, is extreme
reader response, has merit if if one's objective is to discover
psychological patterns or complexes in individual readers. This is
what Jbor's function, disguised as a close reader of texts, was all
about. He was keen to discover the latent racist or other pernicious
or insidious prejudices (as He perceived them in their posts)  of
P-List readers and then flout His brilliant and humanitarian posts.
The text is not only black marks on a white page; it is more than a
Rorschach.  The dots are arranged y the author to communicate. Now,
McCarthy drops his conjunctive apostrophes, Joyce drops punctuation,
Faulkner....Woolf, so on, but this is not the point, but that Pynchon
is playing with the conventions and we are, if we want to understand
what he communicates, obliged to know the conventions and how his
playfulness constructs meaning. We are free, of course, to ignore the
Author, but this has both positives and negative. The big positive is
for the reader responding. The big negative is for everyone else.
Communication between author and reader is compromised and so is
communication with other readers.
To square this with Adorno seems impossible. But, what do I know?
I'm only, Bleeding. I think?