From the Bottom Up
A Writer writes. This act, by the nature of its being, must produce something, for a writer writes, necessarily, upon some object. Whether its lined paper, napkins, refrigerator message boards, or clean white word processing docs, writing is by necessity - writing onto something. On the other hand, though potentially still creative, productive and clearly metaphorical, writing onto nothing is something other than writing, a process which serves no purpose in our discussion.
We first must define the object on which our writer writes. It is, foremost, a physical object.* This classification alone is rendered insufficient by the presence of a later physical manifestation in the textual chain. So, let us for now refer to this first object as the Receptive Object and the later physical object as the Productive Object. The Productive Object being the “final” or “finished” manifestation of the text, i.e. Newspaper, Novel, Blog Post, Film, Journal, etc (not to mention the frequent, ethereal, transformation from Receptive Object to Productive Object).
So, to recap:
A Writer writes onto a Receptive Object in order to create a Productive Object. What, however, does the Writer write? This gets tricky. It must be remarked here that a frequent dualistic nature persists throughout the entire Metaphysics of Text. The first of which is the dualistic manifestation of text, an at first deceptively simple problem of definition and subsequently a problematic core to the entire Metaphysics.
The first is simply the Text, which is the sequence of symbols constructed on the Receptive Object. The second being the perceived Work which our Writer intends to produce on the Receptive Object. The necessity of this distinction is empirical, or else every Writer would be completely content with the Text they produce, the impossibility of which should be self-evident. Our Writer, then, creates the Text accidentally by producing the Work. One could go further in saying that the Work is the attempt at producing the final Productive Object while the Text and its associated Receptive Object are the means to that end.
We begin to see the dualism moving towards conflict. For we can identify two lines of development and a problematic chronology between them. That is to say, the Work seeks to actualize itself through the Productive Object while the Text actualizes itself necessarily as the Receptive Object. However, the Work is not the primary catalyst for the Productive Object, the Productive Object is the actualization of the Receptive Object. So the Work cannot actualize itself in the Productive Object, or more clearly, the Productive Object cannot communicate the Work. That is not with any predictable reliability, for we must account for the possible coincidence.*
I want to be clear that this formula should not discourage us in our pursuit of the Work through the Productive Object. There is no need to throw away the literary analysis tradition. In many ways, we have always been judging a work by its efficacy in consistently manifesting what we assume to be the Writer’s Work. That efficacy remains crucial. It speaks to the skill of technique and the power of the Writer’s intention. It is however a judgment at its best.
Though, any further attempt which assumes that one is actually interpreting the Work itself, and not the physical manifestation of the Text as Productive Object, is built on false premises, it’s restriction to falsehood does not render it useless, only untrue. For the Metaphysics of Text is concerned with only one thing: Can the Work truly manifest itself? Or more clearly, Does the Work exist?
We mean, then, to explain how the Work and the Analysis can both be metaphysical objects while the Text is a physical object. What must transpire for this to occur, what are the laws of this transference, what must occur as a result? Then, and most importantly, what can be said truthfully about the Text? As such, our preliminary definitions are stated and we can begin our analysis.
*Footnotes in Comments.
1 For the too far distracting concern about the the would-be tangibility of an electronic document, let it suffice to say that an e-document is primarily a means to an end. That end is a produced and transferable intangible object (file) which has, at least, the potential for being encoded onto a physical object (i.e. sheet of paper, CD, mini-disk, etc.) If that answer does not suffice, then let expediency plea its case.
ReplyDelete2 You might object to this all together and proclaim that the Text only actualizes as the Productive Object once the Writer allows it. That is once the Writer consents to the Text initially as an accurate actualization of the Work and subsequently as the Productive Object. In this way, the Receptive Object is simply the format in which the Writer sculpts, either successfully or otherwise, the Work. Thus, Work=Text.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you argue that line of reasoning to my post-humous, Gangsta Rap, iTunes, genre classification. Beyond the obvious example of chance, there is the very difficult query of whether the Writer can accurately perceive the Text, or predict with any accuracy the ideal form in which to construct the Work. A question we hope to eventually address, but for now, let chance suffice for the sake of our discussion.
One must consider when the writer projects onto an object that is not receptive. I guess I would like more definition of the receptive object. I'm think of writing the body or, really, any case where the writer can project onto an object incorrectly. Then again, I could be missing the boat entirely on this.
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure I understand your reference to the "body" and your concern leads me to believe I need explain the two "objects" next.
ReplyDeleteHowever, let me say this:
The Receptive Object is a logical necessity of Writing.
For Writing, in its most literal sense, is always writing ON something.
The Receptive Object is THAT something.
So any attempt to write on something which is not receptive would fail to be Writing.
I do like the term "Projects" and it might find its way in later, but for now consider the writer's would-be projection as the aforementioned "Work".
That is, the metaphysical process of constructing symbols, the creative process of writing vs. the physical act of putting words to some physical form.
Does that help or just kick up more dust?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm trying to say is that receptive almost insinuates that the object is open for the writing. Isn't it possible that sometimes the object would be forced upon?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am going on about is really unimportant, I suppose. I just think maybe you could add a statement about imposition, because it would please me. :)
I just believe their is a further conundrum. For instance, I would be curious to see how this plays into your theory.
ReplyDelete1. A writer writes his work onto his receptive object.
2. Perhaps it is a fictional piece whereby he speaks of a girl, who is a tomboy, and he goes on about how she climbs trees and always wears pants.
3. The author then, either intentionally or otherwise, creates a gender role, or idea of female, and is then creating a receptive object within a receptive object. He is writing onto the body (granted this is a very simplistic sort of interpretation of "writing the body").
4. Thus the text becomes metaphysical. "We mean, then, to explain how the Work and the Analysis can both be metaphysical objects while the Text is a physical object."
I'm glad you brought this up. I think imposition is crucial in the discussion and I hope to get to it in length. Though, if I could, speak off the cuff about it, I'd like to try and address your concern.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're talking about here points to the very catalyst and crux of the Metaphysics, and perhaps I failed to address it well enough above. In fact, I'm sure of it.
The Metaphysics is hindered on one moment within the Writer Function, it is a continuous length, indeterminable but existing simultaneously between the present and future. I illustrate this maybe a little more adequately in Metaphysics of Text II but in a nutshell:
The Text and the writer's intent are severed.
The Text is the by-product of the Work.
It is what occurs as the writer Works,
but communication itself is flawed,
and we can see clearly,
that many authors are dissatisfied by their resulting Work.
So the Work cannot be the same as the Text.
Without the insignificantly rare occurrence of pure, dumb, luck.
This is why there is a metaphysical transference at all.
The writer's Work is metaphysical,
The Text is purely physical,
so they cannot be the same by category.
However, something of the Work is encoded
the Text is ultimately the actualization of the Work.
In this way, the Work is not the same as the Text
because the Work is the producer of the Text.
We want to assume that the writer imposes himself on the things we see when we look at the text, the Reception process. It's not however true.
1.) The writer imposes himself on the Work
2.) The Work thus produces the Text
3.)The Text imposes itself on the Receptive Object
4.) The Receptive Object (by either transformation or actualization) becomes the Productive Object.
5.) The Text is encoded on the Productive Object
6.) And as such is a Productive Object or, at least, an element of production.
7.) Therefore the connection between Work and Text is clearly divided over the line drawn by Intent.
There is a complex relationship between them, no doubt, but they are still two distinct bodies. We need to account for that transition between the Metaphysical Work and the Physical Text. If we can accept their relation as accidental, then we can at least understand the Nature of that relation.
OK.
8.) The reader reads the Text.
9.) In reading, the Text is the Productive Object and the reader is the Receptive Object.
10.) The reader then receives the product of the Text,-- the Manifested Text.
11.) In the Manifested Text the reader receives a tomboy, who climbs trees and always wears pant.
12.) The reader begins another Process of Production...
13.)...
In this way also, you and I and everyone are subject to these rules. The Textual Chain therein exists,
and it is not broken,
but slave to chance.
Does that help?