[ilds] RG Justine 1.4 -- active reading & Justine

william godshalk godshawl at email.uc.edu
Sat Apr 21 13:06:29 PDT 2007

>Yet, in order to say the readings differ, we
>must have access to them, and are those readings not themselves texts?  So,
>we do have a text -- we just disagree about it.

I would suggest, tentatively, that we have an infinite regression (or 
progression) of interpretations. We isolated humans have to interpret 
everything -- even the sign that says "this means that." What does 
she mean by that? And you could say that each interpretation is a 
text that needs to be interpreted.

The question is: is there a base text that needs no interpretation, 
and which is not in itself an interpretation.

I'm not big on discourse communities. I think Fish wanted to find a 
way to ground his readings -- i.e. in other readers who interpret the 
artefacts the same way he does.

Thank heaven that we no longer spill ink.

W. L. Godshalk		*
Department of English         *
University of Cincinnati            Stellar disorder  *
Cincinnati OH 45221-0069      *

More information about the ILDS mailing list