Bruce Andrews interview at The Argotist Online:
http://www.argotistonline.co.uk/Andrews%20interview.htm
Excerpt:
"Since I’m interested in the experience of the reader, I haven’t been interested in chance. Chance might seem to open the possibilities for the reader to the widest level, but often it doesn’t get the reader anywhere, it’s so open that nothing counts, nothing has any significance, none of the connections are designed to have any effect on the reader, and therefore it often seems like it ignores the reader, just as much as any type of closed textual work. So in a weird way chance and the old notion of intentionality end up having the same relationship to the reader, in both cases the reader is ignored. Either you don’t care what the reader makes of something because there’s not much to make of it, or you ignore the reader because you’ve already figured out what everything means, maybe they’ll get it maybe they won’t, but you don’t care either way because your job is to create this edifice, this autotelic text, as if it means by itself and doesn’t require the reader to get on board, and if the reader does have some interest in getting on board then they have to pay tuition to take the class to be told what things actually meant as if the lecturer is ventriloquizing the author. You know, if you read old lit crit, it’s often outrageous, the presumptiveness of it. I mean, “this means this, and I know because this is what the author meant.” I mean, who the fuck knows what the author meant? That’s always irritating to me, because it closes things down. But in a weird way, totally randomizing product does too."
|