{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2018", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 2018, "subject": "Readerly and writerly texts", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "1999-12-09T16:29:28+00:00", "last": "1999-12-11T01:10:21+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeremy W. Crampton", "address": "jcrampto at gmu.edu" }, "date": "1999-12-09T16:29:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Readerly and writerly texts", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi,\n\nI've had some disturbing thoughts lately...\n\nA distinction sometimes made in poststructuralist lit-crit is between the\nreaderly and writerly text. I wonder how/if this could apply to Wolfe's work.\n\nWriterly text: is ourselves writing (eg., surfing the Web, the narrative\nthat is created). Self-consciously aware of its own artifice and its\n(failed) attempts at realism.\n\nReaderly text: meaning is stable, transmitted to the reader, dominating\n\nFor you lit-crit types, you know that these terms come to us from Barthes:\n\nhttp://web.uvic.ca/~ckeep/hfl0250.html\n\nIf we approach a text as a writerly text it is not possible or desirable to\nstart identifying fixed meanings or metanarratives (\"Wolfe just does track\nthe gospels\"). In a writerly text, the reader is in control. \n\n--Is it possible to achieve the writerly text or is it dependent on the\nprevailing social relations? Barthes is supposed to have identified the\nreaderly text as the dominant mode under capital. \n--Is this list itself a writerly text?\n\nAccording to Foucault (\"The death of the author,\" 1969):\n\n..implies that the notion of the author is a historical construct (prior,\nwe looked at heroes, presumably actors in Greek myth and tragedy)\n\n..efforts to contain a text are problematic..what is a work? is a work that\nauthored? and when is an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary but\ncan escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf\nSev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5 as being part of\nBoTNS or not).\n\n..historically, authors emerged as a category when they became subject to\npunishment for their work. Texts were owned (this varied over time and\nbetween different fields, eg between literary and scientific works. at\nfirst, sci works had to have a marker to be accepted as true, even if that\nmarker was an ancient authority). then in17th/18th C. sci works began to be\nreceived for themselves not by reference to their author, and it was\nliterary works that now needed an author.\n..relevant to today's efforts at erasing the author (double blind peer\nreview) which is actually just an acknowledgement of the power of the\nauthor (and the author always sneaks back in anyway).\n\nFor Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors are \"unitary\"--neither\nthe subject nor discourse is stable.\n\nDoes any of this apply to Wolfe/us?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeremy W. Crampton\t\t\thttp://geog.gmu.edu\nGeography and Earth Science [MS1E2]\nGeorge Mason University\nFairfax Va. 22030-4444\n(703) 993-1210" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1999-12-10T09:08:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Readerly and writerly texts", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Jeremy W. Crampton wrote:\nIf we approach a text as a writerly text it is not possible or desirable to\nstart identifying fixed meanings or metanarratives (\"Wolfe just does track\nthe gospels\"). In a writerly text, the reader is in control. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "..efforts to contain a text are problematic..what is a work? is a work that\nauthored? and when is an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary but\ncan escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf\nSev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5 as being part of\nBoTNS or not)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It seems to me that the reader is always in control. I can read, or not\nread. I can read every other chapter. I can use a text to illustrate a\ndiscussion of Freud. I can read every event as having an allegorical\nmeaning. I can even read with the goal of trying to understand what the\nauthor meant to say.\n\nThe text, like anything else in life, may cause me to have unexpected\nthoughts or emotions, but what I do with those is up to me.\n\nLit-Crit types talk like some ways of reading are more \"valid\" than\nothers, when what they really mean is \"I like to read this way.\"\n\nHow we read Wolfe depends on how we want to read Wolfe. Some of us on\nthis list are interested in Wolfe's intentions as a part of reading his\nbooks. Others are want to read the text without reference to Wolfe's\nbiography or alleged intent. Some are interested in reading his works as\nChristian allegory. Some are not interested in allegorical\ninterpretations. Some like to use imagination to fill in perceived gaps\nin the narratives (what we've sometimes called \"fan fiction\"), others\nprefer a more strict approach, reading with Occam's Razor in one hand.\n\nI suspect many of us enjoy reading and discussions using more than one of\nthese approaches, although some may prefer sticking to one approach at a\ntime.\n\nWe can argue about which of these approaches is best, but like most\naesthetic arguments the discussion would be mostly descriptive (\"I like x\nbecause it contains y and z, which I like\") if it didn't descend into\nname-calling (\"Pearl Jam Rocks!\" \"Pearl Jam is stupid!\").\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Henley", "address": "jlhenley at erols.com" }, "date": "1999-12-11T01:10:21+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Readerly and writerly texts", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, Jeremy:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: urth-errors at lists.best.com [mailto:urth-errors at lists.best.com]On\nBehalf Of Jeremy W. Crampton\n\nI've had some disturbing thoughts lately..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let me try to alleviate those for you!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Writerly text: is ourselves writing (eg., surfing the Web, the narrative\nthat is created). Self-consciously aware of its own artifice and its\n(failed) attempts at realism.\n\nReaderly text: meaning is stable, transmitted to the reader, dominating" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First off, repeat after me:\n\n\t\"Il y a _beaucoup_ de merde dehors le texte.\"\n\nSecond, \"dominating\" is precisely what we readers want a lot of the time.\nAs Dana Gioia once said introducing the poet Nina Cassian, \"What we really\nwant to do when we read a new poet is _surrender_.\"\n\nIf there were not an enormous kick in being \"dominated\" by an author, I\ndoubt we'd read much." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If we approach a text as a writerly text it is not\npossible or desirable to start identifying fixed\nmeanings or metanarratives (\"Wolfe just does track\nthe gospels\"). In a writerly text, the reader is\nin control.\n\n--Is it possible to achieve the writerly text or is\nit dependent on the prevailing social relations?\nBarthes is supposed to have identified the\nreaderly text as the dominant mode under capital." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Cause readerly texts are bad and capital(ism) is bad. If one comes out of\nthe Stalin-besotted milieu that gave us Barthes' generation of French\nintellectuals, that is. But I think the real problem with this particular\ntheory is that poststructuralists don't really get the texture of pleasure.\nTo wit:\n\nWolfe compares the writer/reader relationship to the torturer/client\nrelationship, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek. I would offer a different\ncomparison: bondage of the sexual kind. Meaning the consensual practices\nthat dominants and submissives get up to when they find each other,\nincluding the whole apparatus of safe words and trust-building measures\nthat take place before and/or outside \"the game.\" The dominant is\ncertainly, um, dominant. And the submissive is dominated. That's what the\nsubmissive wants. That is what the submissive _permits_. It is, moreover,\nthe dominant's _duty_.\n\nIn other words, the relation of dominant to submissive is not simple. When\nGioia says he wants to _surrender_ to Nina Cassian, that he _has_\nsurrendered to Nina Cassian, he means he does so in what we all understand\nare circumscribed and delimited - if thrilling - ways.\n\nWhat poststructuralists decry as the \"authority\" of a text is precisely\nwhat most of us want most of the time. We want a sense that the writer\nknows what the hell he or she is talking about. Indeed, textual authority\ntends to vary inversely as the number of books thrown across the room in\ndisgust. (\"CHRIST! No one can get around the Washington DC Beltway in _half\nan hour_!\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--Is this list itself a writerly text?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure.\n\nIs this list a unitary text at all? If this list is a \"writerly\" collection\nof texts in a way that TBOTNS itself is not, which is \"better?\" Is it\nrelevant that this list could not exist without TBOTNS but TBOTNS could do\nquite nicely without this list?\n\n[See, I criticize PoMos, but that don't mean I can't litter my text with\nscare quotes!(Parentheticals too.)]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "According to Foucault (\"The death of the author,\" 1969):\n\n..implies that the notion of the author is a historical\nconstruct (prior, we looked at heroes, presumably actors\nin Greek myth and tragedy)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The prizes at the Athenian dramatic festivals went to the - well, they went\nto the authors. They venerated \"blind Homer\" too. And whether one believes\nthat Homer existed or composed either of the works that bear his name, it\nwas precisely as an author that they venerated him.\n\nBTW, in a trivial sense, the notion of the author _is_ a historical\nconstruct - used to be there were no authors (no writing frex), then there\nwere. But what have we really said when we say something is a historical\nconstruct? I think the answer is, Sometimes a lot; Sometimes not much. In\nthe case of the notion of the author, I favor the latter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "..efforts to contain a text are problematic.." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Efforts to contain a weasel are also problematic. Doesn't mean it can't be\ndone. By the same token, it doesn't mean it should be. I'm not trying to be\n(merely) flip; I think texts may be a lot like weasels - it's not a trivial\nmatter to contain them, nor is it necessarily a good idea in any given\ncase. But it might be. And you might want to switch containers now and then\ntoo. Stick TBOTNS in the hard sf cage today, the Christian apologist cage\ntomorrow and the worldly-messiah critique cage next week.\n\nWeasels can even give us a handle on the textual property of multiplicity -\nthere may be a bunch of cages suitable for any given weasel. But there will\nbe a lot more where the weasel doesn't fit, or fits poorly, or gets lost in\nall that room." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "what is a work? is a work that authored? and when\nis an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary but\ncan escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf\nSev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5\nas being part of BoTNS or not)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's an interesting discussion along these lines in the intro to the\nGregg Press edition of DHALGREN. The writer points out that the \"texts\" of\nsf (and other) books do not come to us pure. There's cover art and dust\njacket matter. (Unless you have the _Gregg Press_ edition, but the very\nausterity of those plain green bindings was its own metamessage.) There may\nbe reviews and word of mouth. All of these things (e.g. the irrelevant\ncover copy on the Bantam edition of DHALGREN) influence a reader's approach\nto a text.\n\nIt was a pretty interesting intro. But it was not more interesting than\nwhat Delany said years later in a completely different forum: The more\ntraditional sectors of SF readership pitched a fit at DHALGREN'S difficulty\nand outre sexuality, but the book sold extremely well. Why? Delany quotes a\nyoung woman who told him \"I like it because it's about people like me and\nmy friends.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "..historically, authors emerged as a category when\nthey became subject to punishment for their work." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe. One might ask Aeschylos and Hesiod about this one. But I'm not sure\nFoucault doesn't have this one backward in any case. It might be possible\nthat coopers emerge as a category when they become subject to punishment\nfor their work too - the law and the state will interest themselves in\nevery sphere of activity, so if you do something you are probably subject\nto punishment for what you do. (\"Bad barrel!\") If no one was making texts\nor barrels before and now they are, then they weren't punishable before and\nnow they are." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "..relevant to today's efforts at erasing the author\n(double blind peer review) which is actually just an\nacknowledgement of the power of the author (and\nthe author always sneaks back in anyway)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, good point! But if the author sneaks back in, does that mean the\nauthor isn't dead after all?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors\nare \"unitary\"--neither the subject nor discourse is stable.\n\nDoes any of this apply to Wolfe/us?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nah.\n\n\n\nBest,\n\n\nJim\n ******************************************\n\"There will always be Costello/\n a little larceny Bacharach,\n in everyone\" \"My Thief\"" } ] } ] }