word gains 5

‘so there i am,’ he says.
‘yes?’ expectation in his voice.
‘… and i’m writing this piece which is intended as fiction, and someone mistakes it for reality, so it mutates the piece and it becomes some metatextual, self-referential, post-modern piece that aims to provoke the reader so it can then feed of that reaction and fold it into the future momentum and structure of the writing. and it actually gets a response …’
‘ok, so that’s good, right?’
‘yeah, sort of …’
‘ok, so did they engage on it in the way which you were wanting and expecting?’
‘yes, they did actually; it was exactly the kind of thing i had been looking for …’
‘so?’
‘well, now part of me is wondering whether having the understanding response is better than having the clueless mistaken response.’
‘you mean so you have something to react against?’
‘exactly.’
‘ok, well, aren’t you reacting to it by questioning whether it is what you wanted?’
‘hmm, i hadn’t thought of it that way.’
‘ah, really? so you hadn’t thought about writing about the process of thinking about the process of responding to the writing which he had responded to?’
‘hmm, can you say that again? you kind of lost me.’
‘did i really?’
‘no, i’m controlling this conversation – sorry, the influence of the text is obviously leaking into reality somewhat, given that i am seeing this conversation as an extension of the fiction.’
‘well, in a sense it is. i was wondering – have you thought how the fiction will behave when it moves from the internet where it exists now as an interactive entity to a book where it will basically be mapped onto a different structure and forced to behave in a different manner?’
‘yes, i had thought about screen shotting the story and giving both a context via a preface and the visual cues of reproducing the internet version on the physical page. but of course it will still be something other than an internet interactive serialised fiction with live readers who work to change it as it is written.’
‘of course, but the readers who come to it as a printed text will also change it in the way that they percieve it.’
‘yeah, fuck, it gets kind of complicated doesn’t it?’
‘it always was – a critical reading, any reading, has always changed the nature of the text – goes with the territory. once it is out of the writer’s hands its solidity ebbs. not that a piece would maintain its semiotic integrity were it to only exist in relation to its writer because the writer would change over time.’
‘what if the writer died?’
‘oh, you think that makes them stay in a fixed position? constellations move my friend. is shakespeare held in the same esteem from generation to generation?’
‘hmm, no, course not. damn, what the hell am i building here?’
‘frankenstein.’
‘ha ha.’
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: