Sunday Book-Thought 132

Let me point out, however, that in each of these interpretive theories, the stability of the material text – the interpretive location, or material object – is assumed.
On the contrary, however, what I am arguing here is that no such stability in the material object can be assumed with respect to texts. (In scientific enquiry itself, insofar as an atom, or a quark, or a superstring is a text, they must be assumed to be variables in their own textual fields, just as those textual fields themselves must be judged as variables within the larger textual field – the language game – we call science.) If we define a text as words in a certain order, then we have to say that the ordering of the words in every text is in fact, at the factive level, unstable. No text, either conceptually or empirically, can have the ‘ordering of its words’ defined or specified as invariant.
Variation, in other words, is the invariant rule of the textual condition. Interpretive differentials (or the freedom of the reader) are not the origin or cause of the variation, they are only its most manifest set of symptoms.
Jerome J. McGannThe Textual Condition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 185.

Have something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s