> But Camille, a blind woman doesn't know what a snake looks like, or what > a tree looks like. That's *completely* missing the point. That's as if to say that because a person has never seen a tree or a snake, then a tree or a snake doesn't exist for them, which is obviously totally false! What I mean is ... we all connect with different aspects of texts. We all interpret them a different way. When I say that we `collectively enact' a text, I mean that the only way those blind women can work out exactly what an elephant is is by each expressing their experience of it, and together forming something approaching a `real' elephant. Obviously an elephant is nothing like a snake or a tree - but aspects of it *are*. Our perceptions of a text can be as incomplete as those isolated views of the blind women. A text is formed in the same way - a character for example - let's say Seymour. Imagine a big white human shaped statue. Then imagine that all our perceptions of Seymour are each a ray of light. Then, as we stand around this statue projecting our perceptions onto it, something approaching a `whole' and realistic Seymour stands before us. This is what I mean by `collective enactment'. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest