URTH |
From: "Alice Turner" <akt@attglobal.net> Subject: (urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n109 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:15:09 Ron H-E wrote: > I still want answers in the FAQ. I fail to see how an InvisiClues/UHS, > rot13, or HTML approach, as discussed here earlier, would not preserve the > puzzles for those who don't want to see the posited answers, thereby > satisfying both parties. In fact, if you are choosing to don the fuligin > mantle of "official" Urth FAQ keeper, Alice, and the other Urthers agrees > that you should, then I will publish an "unofficial" FAQ with answers to > the same questions. (Call me Vodalus.) I do NOT want to be the FAQ keeper. I am happy to be a lieutenant, as I have been with mantis on a number of projects, but I do not want to be the general!!!! But I do think that there might be some serious voting on my side here on the list, my side being that flat-out answers (Cliff's notes) are not what most people want or what Wolfe would be happy with. Could we please have some input? This is a list thing, after all, our own thing, not a big web addition. -alga > But I would far rather we have *one* FAQ, with the suggested answers > (multiple suggested answers, if there be disagreement) concealed by some > fiendish technological ruse such as rot13 or UHS. Technology such as UHS or > "layered" HTML pages also makes possible the progressive unveiling of more > and more explicit hints, which can't but be an advantage. > > Ron > > -- > Ron Hale-Evans: rwhe@apocalypse.org ... <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/> > Center for Ludic Synergy: <http://www.ludism.org/> > Kennexions GBG artgame: <http://kennexions.ludism.org/> > Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/hex8.html> > Positive Revolution FAQ: <http://www.ludism.org/posrev/> > > > --------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n109.5 --------------- > > From: "Jeremy W. Crampton" <jcrampto@gmu.edu> > Subject: Readerly and writerly texts > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 16:29:28 -0500 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > In-Reply-To: <199911301310.FAA11355@lists1.best.com> > > Hi, > > I've had some disturbing thoughts lately... > > A distinction sometimes made in poststructuralist lit-crit is between the > readerly and writerly text. I wonder how/if this could apply to Wolfe's work. > > Writerly text: is ourselves writing (eg., surfing the Web, the narrative > that is created). Self-consciously aware of its own artifice and its > (failed) attempts at realism. > > Readerly text: meaning is stable, transmitted to the reader, dominating > > For you lit-crit types, you know that these terms come to us from Barthes: > > http://web.uvic.ca/~ckeep/hfl0250.html > > If we approach a text as a writerly text it is not possible or desirable to > start identifying fixed meanings or metanarratives ("Wolfe just does track > the gospels"). In a writerly text, the reader is in control. > > --Is it possible to achieve the writerly text or is it dependent on the > prevailing social relations? Barthes is supposed to have identified the > readerly text as the dominant mode under capital. > --Is this list itself a writerly text? > > According to Foucault ("The death of the author," 1969): > > ..implies that the notion of the author is a historical construct (prior, > we looked at heroes, presumably actors in Greek myth and tragedy) > > ..efforts to contain a text are problematic..what is a work? is a work that > authored? and when is an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary but > can escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf > Sev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5 as being part of > BoTNS or not). > > ..historically, authors emerged as a category when they became subject to > punishment for their work. Texts were owned (this varied over time and > between different fields, eg between literary and scientific works. at > first, sci works had to have a marker to be accepted as true, even if that > marker was an ancient authority). then in17th/18th C. sci works began to be > received for themselves not by reference to their author, and it was > literary works that now needed an author. > ..relevant to today's efforts at erasing the author (double blind peer > review) which is actually just an acknowledgement of the power of the > author (and the author always sneaks back in anyway). > > For Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors are "unitary"--neither > the subject nor discourse is stable. > > Does any of this apply to Wolfe/us? > -- > Jeremy W. Crampton http://geog.gmu.edu > Geography and Earth Science [MS1E2] > George Mason University > Fairfax Va. 22030-4444 > (703) 993-1210 > > > --------------- END urth.v028.n109 --------------- > > works > *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/ ranjit@best.com whorl@lists.best.com > > *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/