Entirely agreed then, Edward. :-)
And yes, while the author may be dead and gone -- RIP -- reports
of the demise of the other two certainly were premature.
As for your individualized animated serifs, from Pixar, so long
as one of them isn't given Woody Allen's voice, OK... maybe...
Jack, kessler@well.com
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Edward Levin wrote:
> Jack,
>
> I do think Mackenzie intended the word "effect" in the sense of
> "create," but I'm sure he did not mean to suggest that form
> was *entirely* determinative, and I don't think it's at all
> necessary to read him that way. We may easily accept the
> assertion that the form of the text creates meaning, without
> insisting that no other factors (the text itself, for one)
> similarly create meaning.
>
> In any case, it's a slightly separate ('though related)
> question as to whether texts can have a function separate from
> their form. Again, these questions are not mutually exclusive.
> It's not necessary to believe that texts and forms are
> inseparable in order to believe that the form of a text does
> create meaning in and of itself. Form does not have to equal
> function in order to either affect or effect function (and
> let's not get started on architecture, which is a different
> matter altogether). Put in other terms (since you appropriately
> bring Barthes into this), the death of the author does not
> automatically presuppose the death of the printer or the book
> designer.
>
> Edward
>
> And you're probably right about Pixar; I'm sure they're
> figuring out how to animate individual serifs...
>
> >Jack Kessler wrote:
> > Agreed as to copyright, then -- yes very Mickey Mouse, that
> > extension, the Disney-fication of intellectual property, in fact
> > -- also as to conflating disembodied texts with physical objects,
> > although Pixar may be working on that as a project, now...
> >
> > Correct about Mackenzie: "bibliographers should be concerned to
> > show that forms effect meaning" -- in the sense of "create" the
> > latter... Not create it entirely, though, I don't think he went
> > that far. Certainly "effect" is the stronger term. But even if he
> > used your word, don't you think he meant mine?
> >
> > I wouldn't think he supposed form was entirely determinative of
> > function, in any extreme sense: that it affects it, in the case
> > of books, yes no doubt -- both true in fact and yes he meant that
> > -- but can't book texts have a function if separated from their
> > form? Form=function is for (some) architects only, I'd thought.
> >
> > I've recently read "Livre," by Michel Melot, which credits some
> > of Mackenzie's thinking. In France the texte became entirely
> > separated from the chose, per Barthes and several others, and
> > Melot like many lovers of The Book believes that's a pity.
> >
> > I do too. Also a loss and even incorrect... I believe we can do
> > both, and now are doing so better thanks to digitization.
>
>