readerly/writerly

Jonathan Laidlow · 16 Dec 1999, 14:11 · 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: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM at hhs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: (urth) readerly/writerly
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:11:23 GMT
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0634 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0634.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> > Just because we can't quantifiably have a 'correct' reading, it
> > doesn't necessarily follow that we can't distinguish between 'good'
> > and 'bad' readings.
> > This is superb! I don't suppose you could manage to appear at the sacre=
d> windows=20
of every high school english class in the land, could you? It would> elimin=
ate a host of=20
sorrows.

I agree too, but would add that it makes sense only within a community ofre=
aders that=20
has decided on some criteria for 'good' and 'bad'. Crowley's _Little, Big_ =
is almost=20
certainly not intended as Christian allegory, butif Jim Jordan enjoyed read=
ing it that way,=20
I wouldn't insist that his reading was 'bad,' particulary if he wasn't argu=
ing that his was the=20
only'right' way to read it.

Jonathan replied:

Intentions are a messy business - certainly multiple, and often unverifiabl=
e (even if GW=20
were to tell us his intentions for BotNS they may not have been his changea=
ble thoughts=20
at the time of writing, or  his revised thoughts at the time of writing 'Ot=
ter'). If there is=20
evidence in the text which Jim could marshall towards his argument then it =
would be what=20
we might call a 'good' reading (as a community of fellow readers of the tex=
t). Yet a=20
simple statement that it was a Christian allegory without supporting eviden=
ce might go=20
some way towards a 'bad' reading.=20

Using this argument we can 'contain multitudes' and accept each others vari=
ant readings=20
as evidence of the slippery nature of linguistic units and their associated=
 meanings.

There is of course the added problem of the nefarious 'context'. Those of m=
y students=20
who've tackled 18th century satire without a knowledge of its specific reso=
nances and=20
conventions during that period invariably come a-cropper when they try to i=
ntroduce=20
modern notions of satire. I heard a recent story about Germaine Greer's rec=
ent work on=20
the 17th century author Aphra Behn, where she argues that Behn had problems=
 getting=20
into print because she was a woman. Brum's own expert on 17th century women=
's=20
writing and the early print indsutry pointed out that all writers of the pe=
riod had difficulty=20
getting into print (in their relations with publishers), and the fact that =
she was a woman=20
was, in this case at least, incidental.

In the case of my satirical students, they may well have written something =
interesting on=20
the subject of satire, but it could not constitute a 'good' reading without=
 some awareness=20
of the nature of eighteenth-century satires.

Jonathan
Visit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource
http://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm
Jonathan Laidlow
University of Birmingham, UK

*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