URTH |
From: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Subject: (urth) Readerly/writerly Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:30:01 GMT Hello folks, just dropped in with some semi-random thoughts inspired by Jim and Jeremy's recent discussion of readerly/writerly text and that whole lit crit theory thing. > > 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 > > First off, repeat after me: > > "Il y a _beaucoup_ de merde dehors le texte." > > Second, "dominating" is precisely what we readers want a lot of the time. > As Dana Gioia once said introducing the poet Nina Cassian, "What we really > want to do when we read a new poet is _surrender_." One thing that always bothers me about Foucault (and out of all the post-structuralist types he's my favourite) is that his history is a little, er, vague. There's a line in his 'What is an Author?' which basically states that 'around about the Enlightenment X happened' - when exactly? (and by the by, Barthes wrote 'Death of the Author'). So our first step is putting the post-structuralists into context. Foucault is trying to articulate what he wants from a new late-C20 form of writing, and thus he must differentiate it from the 'old' - hence the binary oppositions . Both Barthes and Foucault are usually read as criticising the old restricted, dominating forms of writing against the new pluralist 'writerly' forms which they envisage. While I'm unsure about Barthes, I think its a disservice to read Foucault like this - yes there is an almost utopian desire to liberate texts from the old strictures but there is also an acceptance that these will merely be replaced by new and different kinds of strictures ('tho hopefully more honest). > > 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. No - I can't agree - the fixed meanings and metanarratives can be found they just cannot necessarily be merged into one over-riding 'meaning' for the entire text. The meanings co-exist, complementing and contradicting themselves, but leaving it for the reader to put them together how she sees fit. > > > > --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. > > Cause readerly texts are bad and capital(ism) is bad. If one comes out of > the Stalin-besotted milieu that gave us Barthes' generation of French > intellectuals, that is. But I think the real problem with this particular > theory is that poststructuralists don't really get the texture of pleasure. > To wit: > > Wolfe compares the writer/reader relationship to the torturer/client > relationship, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek. I would offer a different > comparison: bondage of the sexual kind. Meaning the consensual practices > that dominants and submissives get up to when they find each other, > including the whole apparatus of safe words and trust-building measures > that take place before and/or outside "the game." The dominant is > certainly, um, dominant. And the submissive is dominated. That's what the > submissive wants. That is what the submissive _permits_. It is, moreover, > the dominant's _duty_. Nice description. I think this ties in well with all that we've said about Wolfe and Modernism. I don't believe that Wolfe abdicates control of his texts to the reader in any complete sense. Sure, he sets up dummy levels of narrative to distance the reader from any secure narrative centre, but there are ways through the narrative. Not sure that Wolfe's narrators are strong enough to be described as the dominant partners though - they are peculiarly slippery. > What poststructuralists decry as the "authority" of a text is precisely > what most of us want most of the time. I always thought that the point was not to accept authority blindly, but to analyse the way authority is constructed before accepting it (even if only tentatively. Post-structuralism does not necessarily condemn the notion of authority, merely contextualise it, and accept that a text (I prefer the concrete term 'book' to this work/text confusion - it allows covers, introductions, footnotes, and artwork to have an authority that co-exists with the linguistic units) may have multiple authorities. What is the authority of Severian for example? Does he possess the same kind of narrative authority that Gene Wolfe does? We want a sense that the writer > knows what the hell he or she is talking about. Indeed, textual authority > tends to vary inversely as the number of books thrown across the room in > disgust. Well yes, but what about the narrator? True to his torturer profession, Sev is a very controlling narrator, who sometimes misleads us. But he makes mistakes. He may not know what the hell he is talking about, but I'm sure GW does. There are always extra levels of authority - no text contains just one dominant mode of authority, although the narrative structure may try to convince you that it is otherwise. You can read all of Long Sun as straight objective third person narrative, and then be blown away when you find out that it is actually Horn's literary construction of Silk. > > According to Foucault ("The death of the author," 1969): Barthes wrote 'Death'. Foucault wrote the far more interesting 'What is an author?' > > ..implies that the notion of the author is a historical > > construct (prior, we looked at heroes, presumably actors > > in Greek myth and tragedy) Of course it is! Despite everything that's been drawn from Foucault's words I maintain that his essay does not (unlike Barthes) destroy the need for authors. He expects us to understand the origins of the concept, and show how the 'author' of a text works to guarantee the authority of the book. What kind of authority would Kilgore Trout's 'The Shadow of the Torturer' possess? > > BTW, in a trivial sense, the notion of the author _is_ a historical > construct - used to be there were no authors (no writing frex), then there > were. But what have we really said when we say something is a historical > construct? I think the answer is, Sometimes a lot; Sometimes not much. In > the case of the notion of the author, I favor the latter. Disagree here - perhaps from having done too much boring literary research, but the nature of authors and their authority has changed many times. In medieval times an author was a quite different thing - he could be someone who has rewritten or annotated a prior text, he could be an 'auctor' referred to as a guarantee of the veracity of certain statements, scientific, religious or otherwise. This guarantee was contained in the *name* of the auctor, not in his words. Nowadays we cite authorities and the name marks the place where we can find objective proof for our assertions, especially in scientific debates. In the eighteenth century there was a distinction between authors who wrote for the greater good and were real literary craftsmen (Pope's saving his work for seven years) and the commercial Grub Street 'hacks' who in many cases did not have the inherited fortunes which allowed them to concentrate on small circulation poetery and instead had to write for money in the forms that would generate the most sales. > > ..efforts to contain a text are problematic.. This assumes you want to contain a text. Why do we reread favourite texts? We read them because we constantly find new things in them alongside the familiar. Reading is always a problematic experience, but we create a dominate reading which is the least contradictive. This is containment, of a sort, and I believe we do it all the time. The point is that our containment is not permanent, merely a device of reading which allows us to construct a coherent narrative. [wasn't too sure about the whole weasel thing, but liked this bit:] > Weasels can even give us a handle on the textual property of multiplicity - > there may be a bunch of cages suitable for any given weasel. But there will > be a lot more where the weasel doesn't fit, or fits poorly, or gets lost in > all that room. Yes - the problem with simple post-modern pluralism is that we cannot read BotNS as a cookbook, or a treatise on shelving. The reason for this is that the text possesses certain qualities which limit the plural possibilities - one of these is the author. What Foucault does is to try to make clear the way the author limits the possible significations of a book. I maintain that this isn't a bad thing - it is neither good nor bad. Our knowledge that GW wrote BotNS produces a very different reading (partly because of the stature of our author) to the same book as written by Kilgore Trout. > > ..historically, authors emerged as a category when > > they became subject to punishment for their work. I think this is an example of Foucault flipping the familiar argument on its head for us (cf his arguments in 'A History of Sexuality' where he flips the trad Victorian repressive hypothesis on its head). Whether historical evidence supports this discursive trick is another matter.... > > ..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). > > Hey, good point! But if the author sneaks back in, does that mean the > author isn't dead after all? I think the utopian/socialist goal of a new kind of writing in post- structuralist theory was always the weakest point. What intrigues me is the scope for questioning concepts of authorship and authority which are too often taken for granted. That doesn't mean we must erase their existence, merely understand the way we read the 'new Gene Wolfe novel' in different ways to the 'new Jeffery Archer novel', and the way the presence of the author has a bearing on our reading of their narrators. > > For Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors > > are "unitary"--neither the subject nor discourse is stable. But they can be stabilised in the reading process. One of my favourite bits of post-modern theoretical writing is a little comment by Frederic Jameson about the way late 20th century conspiracy theories are the last gasp of those who cannot accept pluralism. Instead they manage to construct a narrative out of disparate and contradictory evidence to make the chaotic events of the twentieth century make sense. But this is what we always do - we construct narratives out of the material at hand, guided by the author/obstructed by the author. Just because we can't quantifiably have a 'correct' reading, it doesn't necessarily follow that we can't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' readings. At this juncture we probably need a quote from Whitman's 'Song of Myself'. Anyone got it to hand? Jonathan Visit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource http://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm Jonathan Laidlow University of Birmingham, UK *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/