(I thought I would bring this out of the comments box, as it maybe continues the discussion in an interesting way).
*
Dear Mr Adams,
I think you’re right: what we’re saying is not difficult or revolutionary, but it does, I think, go further than a no-brain “reception influences production” schtick.
“Putting the emphasis on the questions arising from encounters with the texts rather than any interpretation that is a result of the encounter would be helpful, I think.”
Forgive me for not really seeing the difference between these “questions” and your “interpretations”. May I take it that you believe in the existence of a big-T Text which exists before, “clean of” so to speak, its interpretations? The mystical non-hermeneutic text? Hey, don’t get me wrong, I kind of like this idea, and I’ve been yelled at before for it: but here was I thinking you all derridean, and then you go and suggest THIS!
I kid I kid.
Anticipation or Inoculation a “vague speculation, not really a reasoned interpretation”: sure, a bit, but criticism’s sometimes about trying to articulate these impressions, without drawing up a flow-chart. I don’t think we’re going to be able to divide up art between Inoculating and Non-Inoculating artists or époques, obviously.
Fascinating you bring in the time element:
“So when you are talking about inoculation, what is the time frame here? Clearly the more contemporaneous receptions are of interest to the author and his/her intentions. Whereas the text would, if you can talk about it at all in this way, only (possibly, if ever) benefit within a much larger timeframe???”
I don’t think this is really all that applicable though, because the reception I had in mind is less a real reception (e.g. author’s friend tells author that new book sucks) and much more the whole horizon of imagined receptions that exist, in possibility, within the author’s head. It is more this which is being “planned against” or “geared towards”, and this is atemporal, as it exists within the writing Ego abstracted.
Here’s the gist: it just seems to me that, for all the talk since the Symbolists, before T.S. even mentioned it, about art’s commitment to difficulty, the most difficult texts still seem to strangely exhibit signs of wanting to be accepted by receptors. (Okay, Finnegan’s Wake has a lot less than Ulysses, but wierdly, I think, they are
there). And they seem to contain these two aspects in a sort of interesting tension or coherence. Openness and closedness? Perhaps. Inoculation, if we still want to use the word, would be a sort of theoretical midpoint, an attempt to come to terms with both Difficulty and Reception: the demands and dangers of each. That’s all.
Funny you don’t get it though, because I would have thought that Robbe-Grillet was precisely a very anticipatory writer. Man, the guy
underlines things. He’s worse than Calvino. His oh so “difficult” novels which he above all “does not want to be popular” contain heaps of pre-fab “aime-moi!” elements: props, signs, clues, mon vieux.
Anyway that was a really interesting comment.