Re: liberation #1

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 22 Nov 1998 14:31:14 +1100

> Ok, your comments above are probably more accurately directed toward
> Camille than toward me.  She leans a lot more toward the type of Reader
> Response views that place the origin of meaning in the reader.  I KNOW
> she's gonna reply and say, But you don't understand me, and when she does
> then that will all be cleared up :)

No, not at all (: I totally agree. I'm probably the more strident voice on
this topic, which a lot of my writer friends think is unbelievable. I do
agree with you also on the fact that I'm not endeavouring to change
anyone's mind - I learnt long ago that that is utterly fruitless - but to
engender one of my favourite axioms, the one from `To Kill a Mockingbird' :
`walk a mile in another man's shoes' - i.e. you can understand why someone
would hold a particular point of view without necessarily subscribing to
it.

>  My  "intentions" are buried somewhere within my
> mind--and some of them may not even be obvious to me, even though some
> are quite obvious.

This, to my mind, is the very heart of the idea that a writer is not
priveleged over his or her readers. I am constantly amazed by things that
other people ascertain from my writings which are so obvious to me after
the event but were done with no conscious intention whatsoever. 

> Here's where I differ somewhat from
> Camille.  I don't think an individual reader creates meaning.  I don't
> think that's what happens at all--or, at least, that's not the most
> significant thing happening.  Each individual reader has been taught to
> read by Someone, and has read specific books (that were also read by many
> other people in his or her society), and has led a particular life **in a
> particular society.**  So reading, even an individual reading a novel in
> the warmth of his or her own bed, is a community event.

I wouldn't say that's differing so much from my opinion ... as I said in
answer to Michael Tippermas' post, we *all* have a hand in the creation of
a text, and this occurs at both a personal and universal level. It's as if
we put all our experiences and biases about the book into one big melting
pot and inside is the goulash that is Language. Like any text, like the
Canon itself, it's basically a system of agreements - as you say, the only
reason `cow' means a large farm animal is because we've all agreed that it
does. Thus a text is simply a series of accepted theories.

Thus, as you say, the author is simply another person in the process of
generating these theories. Thank you for your very eloquent post - you've
summed up a lot of things I've been saying or wanting to say much better
than I have. (:

P.S.

>  If I
> were in Southern California and said a restaurant meal was "waaaay cool,"
> that would mean I really enjoyed it.  If I said that in Australia, it may
> mean the plate was left on the counter too long before being brought to
> the table

`Cool' *is* common currency over here too (:. On the other hand, I might
get in a bit of trouble if I asked you if you wanted to borrow some thongs
to walk over to the park in, because over here thongs are a kind of
footwear, whereas over there they are rather naughty lingerie used to
seduce Presidents (: 

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest