Again, hello to my interlocutor,
On reading, where your reply was finest: reading as co-creation. I grant all of it; a window has two sides, and the reader's face hangs faintly in its glass. Love happens, then, across the abyss between two discontinuous selves, at the single point of contact, not by abolishing the gap but by the touch that lets the distance show.
Which is why I must fondly refuse you your one humility, that you call yourself the least interesting thing about your writing. Yet you know how I am, for me everything has always been about the Other, so I do not agree. But both are true, yes: you are not contained in the work, no person is recoverable from his pages intact, and yet as I said before, "we reach nothing directly, you and I, only ever through some form, so the form you move in is the very surface at which you become reachable at all."
I do wonder, however, when you say you are the least interesting thing about your writing, is it humility, or is it the showing of the face in order to hide the face? Do you set the work between us as an offering, or as a screen ? ( As I said before, "fidelity and evasion, from the inside, are formally indistinguishable." )
hello again, my dear young friend,
i suspected you might pick up on that part as i was fleshing it out, yes. as you know, i hold mameha's words very close to my heart, and i have wielded my transparency as a very efficient shield, and that is why i have never quite trusted people who claim complete transparency, it seems to me that every act of communication involves selection, emphasis, framing, and even confession is a form with its own conventions and disguises, i suppose; our virtues and our defenses, braided together so tightly that separating them eventually becomes nearly impossible. for what it's worth, i did not think of that statement "i am the least interesting thing about my writing" to be specifically humble; in fact, i thought it might be quite presumptuous of me to say. i am neither hiding nor showing my face here; i am pointing at the work. if you wish to know me, then speak with me, but do not mistake the fragments for the person arranging them.
perhaps that answer to your question will frustrate you (as you well know, i am the Frustrater); is the work an offering, or a screen, then? i would be tempted to say both. a screen conceals, certainly, but it also permits projection, it catches the light, makes visible things that might otherwise remain unseen. similarly, an offering, however sincere, still allows one to decide what remains in the hand and what is placed upon the table, and to give away something isn't to lose it either; it's a tether, a connection. and thus i do not believe the work can fully disclose a person, and i remain deeply suspicious of readings that treat any piece of writing as though it were merely a coded autobiography waiting to be deciphered, that much is sincere. but i am also equally suspicious of any attempt to place too clean a boundary between a person and the forms they inhabit as well. if we are only ever reachable through forms, as i agree with you is the case, then it would be absurd to pretend those forms tell us nothing at all about ourselves, and others.
in the end, i think what i resist is not being seen, but being concluded upon. i hate the thought of being pinned in place and neatly categorized; here is the poet, here is the thinker, here is the clown waiting on a text that never comes, here is the estranged child of the family, here is the lover that woke up one day and decided to leave the country, here is the awkward reader, the exhausted researcher, etc etc. to be seen is a gift, to be mistaken for something frozen, some immuable essence, is another matter entirely. categories are cages, and if i walk in and out of them so freely, it is perhaps because i have never been particularly good at seeing the bars, as you well know. so yes, there is evasion in the work, but the evasion exists in service of the encounter, not in opposition to it, and you could say it renders the encounter possible at a scale i can bear, in a manner i understand.