Re: again ?
J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Sat, 04 Jul 1998 15:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 19:13:17 +1000 Camille Scaysbrook
<verona_beach@geocities.com> writes:
>
>> Now, I think modern critical theory is missing it too in some ways.
>See,
>> when we argue Author vs. Reader as far as the origin of meaning in a
>> text.
>
>I think one of the biggest problems we have here is the idea of
>conflict.
>To me, it's not a matter of Author vs Reader because I seem them as
>part of
>a vital formula of communication - Author + Reader = Text. In the end,
>the
>critic, the reader, and the author are all striving to find one thing
>-
>Meaning. This is at the root of what both Jim and Matt said.
>
>
>
Naah, you didn't read me far enough :) I don't think meaning comes from
the author OR reader at all, or any combination or opposition thereof :).
I think the author is just a well informed reader, so that's why I
believe the Author/Reader opposition is invalid. Since you say meaning
comes from the addition of author and reader, then the opposition still
exist--just the "opposing parties," so to speak, are in a different
relationship to one another than normally spoken of.
Meaning in a text doesn't arise from any "Subject," to me, but from
Language--an Object. It existed before we did and will continue to exist
after we are gone. It is as big as every intelligent being that exists
but no bigger. That is where meaning comes from. We all participate in
it and influence it, but Language is in control of meaning and the origin
of it, not readers or authors.
THAT'S what I was trying to say.
Jim
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]