> From: George Aichele <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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...
> 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.
Episcopal Divinity School
Cambridge, MA 02138