A while ago now, in response to a not very considered post of
mine, and mid-response to a seriously wacky misreading of my
post by Stephen Pain, Trevor suggested that "Prynne, through a
dense interlocking of his verbal surfaces via controlled and
deliberate ambiguities, resists any attempt by the reader simply to
free-associate his/her own meaning onto his text," and judged this
scenario (rightly) to be "not entirely surprising." I assume he
wasn't surprised because, give or take the "controlled and
deliberate ambiguities," the rest of his remark, it seems to me,
details a, or the, basic requirement for the production of a
communicable sense or senses. The same basic requirement is
assumed by Stephen Pain, in his prose and his poetry both; yet
Trevor's paraphrase (PARAPHRASE, mind: it is a speculative
paraphrase that S.P. takes to be "Trevor's assertion that Prynne
exercises control over meaning") is adduced by S.P. to both
describe and, it appears, to advocate a ruthless imposition along
the lines of, for example, Murdoch's well-documented and self-
serving censorship and/or distortion of the reporting of current
affairs in his various media. On this evidence, it is S.P. who would
look closer to Murdoch, if the comparison wasn't already so
transparently absurd.
So, Keston, Yes and yes.
all best
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|