limits?
oz (craig.king@cwcom.net)
Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:13:21 +0100
hello hello . . .
i agree with matt kozusko's idea of the limits of being too reader
orientated as somehow effacing individualism at the same time as
it proposes to liberate it.
it seems also that this can be taken to a worrying degree. what are
the limits of the reader to 'create' meaning from a written text? if
one accepts it fully the logic of the thing can be taken to an absurd
degree. if the reader creates all, effacing authorial intent, does this
then open any, if not all, texts, be they novel or advertising copy, to
infinite interpretation? this seems, to me, to drift off into solipsistic
silliness, positioning the reader as not merely author but one-
degree-removed creator of fictions in the face of an aesthetic,
whether you think it's worthwhile or not.
it seems to turn the reader into a character out of a philip k. dick
novel. you know, he reads a book and starts to draw certain ideas
out of it and before you know the interpretation is so far removed
from the intent that he's off in la la land. actually, if it was dick it
wouldn't be a book but reality itself and there's an interesting if
complicated analogy there somewhere between
aesthetics/interpretation and reality/perception: subjectivity,
relativism, reality/realities. oh my, such a can of worms . . .
i've played with it but there's a point here. on the other hand, one
could well create an interpretation of my text that reveals me to be
a vodka drinking prussian ballet dancer, deep at heart . . .
late at night thoughts,
craig king
p.s: i actually prefer gin. preferably with a suggestion of vermouth,
one ice cube, lightly stirred (never shaken, oh my, no) and a spray
of citrus. you know, it was salinger that got me into martinis . . .
and introduced me to the words 'swizzle stick'.