Re: Writing, language, & consciousness

Jesse S. Cook III (jcook@AWOD.COM)
Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:01:38 -0400

On 3 October 1996, Ronald Kephart wrote:

>Speaking for myself and probably most people on the List, we are glad you
>responded. You called everyone's attention to the psycholinguistic model of
>reading which regards the reading process as an INTERACTION between readers and

Talk about absurdities! Here is the definition of INTERACTION: "action on
each other; reciprocal action".

The text might very well have an effect on the reader; the reader can have
no effect on the text--unless the reader subsequently has access to the
author and the author is willing to change the text and the publisher, if
any, is willing to put out a new edition.

>and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the text's author(s).

More absurdity.

>The interaction is very complex

So complex that it is nonexistent.

>The idea that only reading/writing on the internet involves "interaction"
>reflects, as you say, an outdated view of the reading process.

That's a laugh and a half.

Jesse S. Cook III E-Mail:
Post Office Box 40984 or
Charleston, SC 29485 USA

" is not for our faults that we are disliked and even hated,
but for our qualities."--Bernard Berenson (1865-1959)