Digest urth.v028.n109

Alice Turner · 09 Dec 1999, 22:15 · from urth-v0028.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Alice Turner" <akt at attglobal.net>
Subject: (urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n109
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:15:09
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0603 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0603.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ron H-E wrote:
> I still want answers in the FAQ. I fail to see how an InvisiClues/UHS,
> rot13, or HTML approach, as discussed here earlier, would not preserve the
> puzzles for those who don't want to see the posited answers, thereby
> satisfying both parties. In fact, if you are choosing to don the fuligin
> mantle of "official" Urth FAQ keeper, Alice, and the other Urthers agrees
> that you should, then I will publish an "unofficial" FAQ with answers to
> the same questions. (Call me Vodalus.)

I do NOT want to be the FAQ keeper. I am happy to be a lieutenant, as I have
been with mantis on a number of projects, but I do not want to be the
general!!!! But I do think that there might be some serious voting on my
side here on the list, my side being that flat-out answers (Cliff's notes)
are not what most people want or what Wolfe would be happy with. Could we
please have some input? This is a list thing, after all, our own thing, not
a big web addition.

-alga

> But I would far rather we have *one* FAQ, with the suggested answers
> (multiple suggested answers, if there be disagreement) concealed by some
> fiendish technological ruse such as rot13 or UHS. Technology such as UHS
or
> "layered" HTML pages also makes possible the progressive unveiling of more
> and more explicit hints, which can't but be an advantage.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Hale-Evans: rwhe at apocalypse.org  ...
<http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/>
> Center for Ludic Synergy:        <http://www.ludism.org/>
> Kennexions GBG artgame:          <http://kennexions.ludism.org/>
> Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List:
<http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/hex8.html>
> Positive Revolution FAQ:         <http://www.ludism.org/posrev/>
>
>
> --------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n109.5 ---------------
>
> From: "Jeremy W. Crampton" <jcrampto at gmu.edu>
> Subject: Readerly and writerly texts
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 16:29:28 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
> In-Reply-To: <199911301310.FAA11355 at lists1.best.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've had some disturbing thoughts lately...
>
> A distinction sometimes made in poststructuralist lit-crit is between the
> readerly and writerly text. I wonder how/if this could apply to Wolfe's
work.
>
> Writerly text: is ourselves writing (eg., surfing the Web, the narrative
> that is created). Self-consciously aware of its own artifice and its
> (failed) attempts at realism.
>
> Readerly text: meaning is stable, transmitted to the reader, dominating
>
> For you lit-crit types, you know that these terms come to us from Barthes:
>
> http://web.uvic.ca/~ckeep/hfl0250.html
>
> If we approach a text as a writerly text it is not possible or desirable
to
> start identifying fixed meanings or metanarratives ("Wolfe just does track
> the gospels"). In a writerly text, the reader is in control.
>
> --Is it possible to achieve the writerly text or is it dependent on the
> prevailing social relations? Barthes is supposed to have identified the
> readerly text as the dominant mode under capital.
> --Is this list itself a writerly text?
>
> According to Foucault ("The death of the author," 1969):
>
> ..implies that the notion of the author is a historical construct (prior,
> we looked at heroes, presumably actors in Greek myth and tragedy)
>
> ..efforts to contain a text are problematic..what is a work? is a work
that
> authored? and when is an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary
but
> can escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf
> Sev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5 as being part of
> BoTNS or not).
>
> ..historically, authors emerged as a category when they became subject to
> punishment for their work. Texts were owned (this varied over time and
> between different fields, eg between literary and scientific works. at
> first, sci works had to have a marker to be accepted as true, even if that
> marker was an ancient authority). then in17th/18th C. sci works began to
be
> received for themselves not by reference to their author, and it was
> literary works that now needed an author.
> ..relevant to today's efforts at erasing the author (double blind peer
> review) which is actually just an acknowledgement of the power of the
> author (and the author always sneaks back in anyway).
>
> For Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors are
"unitary"--neither
> the subject nor discourse is stable.
>
> Does any of this apply to Wolfe/us?
> --
> Jeremy W. Crampton http://geog.gmu.edu
> Geography and Earth Science [MS1E2]
> George Mason University
> Fairfax Va. 22030-4444
> (703) 993-1210
>
>
> --------------- END urth.v028.n109 ---------------
>
>
works
> *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/
ranjit at best.com
whorl at lists.best.com
>
>


*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net