Re: Ambiguity

>    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
Episcopal Divinity School
Cambridge, MA 02138

Follow-Ups: References: