Re: Ambiguity

To: ingria@bbn.com
Subject: Re: Ambiguity
From: Richard Russell <richruss@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 22:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by ns.dknet.dk with SMTP id AA21693 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <peb@pine.pine.dk>); Wed, 27 Jul 1994 04:47:25 +0200
Cc: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
In-Reply-To: <9407262304.AA00949@konitz.bbn.com>




>    From: George Aichele <0004705237@mcimail.com>
> 
>    Ambiguity has been of great interest to literary theorists for
>    some time now -- phenomenologists (eg, Ingarden), narratologists
>    (eg, Genette), and (post)structuralists (eg, Barthes) among
>    others. However, they are all much more interested in exploring
>    how textual ambiguity works than in "solving" or eliminating it.
> 
>    It may be trite but I think it's true: once a text is
>    disambiguated, it's no longer interesting.
> 
> This supposes that a text can be disambiguated.  Many interesting
> literary texts cultivate ambiguity and cannot be disambiguated---the
> ambiguity is integral to the meaning of the text.
> 
> By the way I know lots of texts that are still interesting without
> being ambiguous; ambiguity isn't the only way to generate interest
> after all...
> 
> -30-
> Bob Ingria

Even Bob Ingria's response presupposes that a text, any text, can be 
disambiguated, or that texts exist without ambiguity, claims about which 
some of us "post"-critics have serious doubts.

Richard Russell
richruss@world.std.com
Episcopal Divinity School
Cambridge, MA 02138

Follow-Ups:

Ambiguity

From: ingria@bbn.com

References:

Ambiguity

From: ingria@bbn.com

Prev: No Subject
Next: Ambiguity
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread