October 2008

No. 5 (Part I) SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN WORDS

READINGS Rulfo theme
.
.
Milagros Ezquerro, University of La Sorbonne.
.
.
.

Liminar

Fifty years after the publication of Pedro Páramo, Juan Rulfo's texts continue to fascinate readers. Despite how much has been written about this book, its reading is a unique experience: the pages are not intended to propose a model of interpretation, but rather to point out some trails to explore the work Rulfo theme, a small territory at a time and immense. This tour will be in three stages: a reading of "Macario," one of the first stories written and published by Rulfo, Pedro Páramo approach, the work center, and a presentation of The Golden Cockerel, novella later , which is still considered by critics, despite the evidence, as a "text to film."

All reading and interpretation of a text presupposes a theory of the text, although not explicit, even if the reader or critic is not aware of the theory presupposes reading. Under plausible theories that are developed in my book Fragments sur le texte1 and will be presented here in summary fashion, so that everyone can try them and discuss them freely.

theoretical proposals from the text and its environment
.
.

A collection of 1027 protons neutrons and electrons, that is, at some level, a personal computer but, clearly, the meeting of these subatomic particles, organization, computer differentiate an accumulation of 1027 single subatomic particle. Then, at that level-that of all possible behaviors that can manifest system, the computer is more than the sum of its constituents and what characterizes it is how atoms combine to form peculiar types of materials and how to combine these materials with each other via switches and circuits. The properties of computer evidence and the quality level of complexity made. The larger and more complex the circuits and logic internal and more subtle will be the unit's features. (2)

What John D. Barrow says the PC can be said a fortiori of the text, structure much more complex than a computer, composed of elements more subtle than the subatomic particles that constitute matter. Like all complex systems, the text is not reduced to the sum of its constituent elements, however rich and varied they can be. The countless ties that bind and prioritize the elements are as important as those same elements to grasp the functioning of the text, or its significance. You also should not forget that the text is a product of two series-production operations and observation, which involves two subjects we call creative subjects or subject to (alpha), and the subject observer or subject or (omega). The text is thus a complex system that works in conjunction with two other complex systems:
TEXT
SUBJECT TO SUBJECT Ù

The complexity of each system is multiplied by the the other two. In addition, the subject and the subject Ù A are also related to other complex systems, such as their cognitive and socio-historical contexts. So just be an exaggeration to say that all is text related, subsequent connections, the entire universe. In terms Borges, every text is an Aleph:

At the bottom of the step, right, I saw a small iridescent sphere of almost unbearable brilliance. At first I thought swivel, then realized that this movement was an illusion produced by the dizzying spectacles it contained. The diameter of the Aleph would be two or three inches, but the outer space was there, undiminished in size
... [...] I saw the Aleph from every point, I saw in the Aleph the earth, and on earth again the Aleph and in the Aleph the earth, I saw my face and my viscera, saw your face, and I felt dizzy and wept, because my eyes had seen that secret and conjectural object, whose name men usurp, but no man has looked: the inconceivable universe. (3)

The text - and not just literature or works of this or that writer, is a subject of recent study. The concept of text as defined by Roland Barthes before while others from the fifties, involves a completely different approach we call product dicursivo text, and also the operations involved. Thanks to the evolution of linguistics, psychoanalysis, semiology, sociology, the history, cognitive science, and scientific thought in general, have been forged instruments of observation, analysis and description of the text. Although there is no unified and coherent motion (we live the age of Babel, we must not forget) things are progressing and are opening new horizons.

Analysis of Text, in particular, has been deepened and refined significantly. The text, conceived as a dynamic system, is left to analyze in a few subsystems whose description allows a more nuanced understanding and more informed. The Author, in this view of the text, is desecrated not only because of less interest to the text but also because the text is not literature, even the literary text only. From the stone inscriptions to advertising slogans through all oral forms, is considered text everything that belongs to the significant practice whose material is language. Much, but is consistent as an object of study. Categorizations and cultural hierarchies are another matter.

One element that seems fundamental to me on recent studies of the text is that instead of enclosing it, as was done for centuries within a narrow and strict disciplinary vision (philology, rhetoric or literary criticism ), has been opened widely to many other disciplines, all human sciences, broadly speaking. Such openness, he has been able to appear as a loss of disciplinary identity, has given the work on a dynamic text that they never had and has revolutionized our view of the text, even if it is long and hard to give it to share, even campus. Far from thinking that this opening is over, I think, for my part, which is still insufficient.

has been repeating that the exponential growth of scientific specialization became inevitable ever closer. Each scientist (and do not talk about wise) is pushed into a small territory, more and more restricted, which dominates very well, and seems doomed to ignore what is happening in the field of discipline neighbor. This can not be denied. However, it is also true that there is, and perhaps more than ever precisely because of the danger of hyper, a shared intellectual territory, beyond the specialties, few physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, linguists , sociologists, psychoanalysts, etc.. who refuse to be confined in their disciplinary fields and wish to discuss with other specialists, major conceptual and ethical issues. Surely you can see phenomena fashion or advertising that evidence such as science or another depending on a dramatic breakthrough or major technological achievements. But, overall, there is an area where the various branches of contemporary thought, where ideas circulate, are exchanged and mutually enriching. That truism has no specific place, or rather has its place there where you think, utopia and pantopía together.

I think it seems incongruous textual semiotics have to participate in this exchange of ideas and concepts, to think that our view of the text has to evolve on par with our vision of the universe, the infinitely large and infinitely small. This is, of course, the premise of this reflection on the text. It feeds on concepts, theoretical constructs, and even paradoxes from other fields. Not that I would ignore anything happen that has built up today semilogía textual, and represents a fundamental acquis. It progresses at large and not by successive elimination, even if it is sometimes necessary to tweak, amend, revise this or that concept appears less convincing and less efficient in light of new contributions. Within this perspective, I have designed my reflection in the form of a theoretical construct homogeneous, but in the form of loose fragments. Each fragment intended as a proposal, an invitation to debate and develop these concepts embryos that aspire to be "intellectual entities" in the words of Valery.

fragmentary structure is neither a new nor a fad-free: it is consistent with the theory of the text which it develops. This reflection could not, without inconsistency, be arranged in a set of linked parts according to a fixed order. What is postulated here is that no play. Play between each piece designed not as a piece of a puzzle that would be rebuilt under a previous model, but as an open game card each reader will have to invent, ask each player card or discard, place and combine according to rules that give himself if he enters the game. So the pieces-apart of this fragment plays an opening-are presented in a random order, alphabetical order of titles, which does not correspond at all to an organization premeditated, nor even suggested by the individual producer.

The number of cards is as random as their combination, could be lower or higher, in fact, undefined. The bet is that the reader player discards the cards he does not agree and invent others able to enter the combination. By personal inclination I preferred to propose a minimal set to let the other a full game. Play the card of virtuality, the game of possibilities.

This fragmented structure has also explained that minimize the unit of reference. Clearly, without a shadow of a doubt that any analysis is developed relying on what they thought and built many others who only write after reading. To give an accurate account of the affiliations of thought and go back to the origins of each concept used would need to multiply both the notes in a footnote that the text would become unreadable. Given this impossibility, poets and novelists who pretend to believe they are the first author, his remorse mitigated scholars more or less reasonably by multiplying the footnotes page, the computer stores the references and endless woven fabric of the literature of Babel. More lazy and wiser, I prefer not to pay to Caesar what belongs to mankind. If language is a social good, all the work of language is common property. I appropriate what is mine, or ours.

quotations that open, close or interrupt an excerpt form an integral part of the game: they play to reflection, allow the reader to slip into other spaces. They are not deposits or ornaments, are, strictly speaking, ways of moving, no territories.

familiar is that a theory is justified by operation: a theory thus has to be accompanied by a number of applications able to convince the reader of the theoretical foundation. I preferred to go to "theory" its etymological sense and present an open series of "observations" I have tried to conceptualize. If these observations are relevant and will arouse in the reader's mind a host of examples suitable for him than I could propose. To each role: this is also part of the game. Subject A

While creature of language, the writer is always caught in the war of fictions (of talk), but it is just a toy, because the language was (writing) is always out of place (atopic), for the simple effect of polysemy (rudimentary state of writing), military engagement of a literary word it is doubtful from the outset. The writer is always in the blind spot of the systems, drifting, it's a joker, a manna, a zero degree, the dead of the bridge, necessary for the sense (fighting), but devoid of fixed meaning, its place , its value (for change) varies according to the movements of history, shock tactics of the struggle: all are required and / or nothing. (4) Subject to

not be confused with any notions commonly used: author, writer, scriptor, implied author, etc. Not that he objects such notions that each has its meaning and its rationale, and common language, and the theories that use them. It is simply that I introduce and define another concept that makes sense within the system to try to describe.
A work is done by a multitude of "wits" and "ancestors events, states, chances, earlier writers, etc .- under the direction of the author. (5)

Yes, in most of the text, author is an integral part of subject A, not its entirety, but what we might call the hard core. About that core, characterized by the idiotopes A, are to be added all the elements that have participated in the production process, from the characteristics of the person writing, culture, biography, to all potential participants in the secondary process (teachers, pupils, parents, friends, prologues, editors, illustrators, etc., see the 'thanks' or dedications). This at least, considering the subject A in synchrony in the production process.

If you are considered in diachrony, things get complicated. Indeed, the text then enters the reception and circulation of meaning meets its way back towards the subject A.

adjust to the author's work.

In each of the movements that draw from it, undergoes a change. Finished
, continues to operate in EL.6
Around the subject to produce multiple effects. Some are obvious: emotional resonance of the reactions of readers, near and far, the findings of the critics, the number of sales of books, literary awards, etc.. A specific case in our time, is the writer Salman Rushdie to death as a result of the publication of a novel and its reception by certain readers. At other times we find consequences similar cases and multiple forms of censorship.

should also evoke the effects of back to the subject A in the image of this simplification, deformation, idealization, myth, recovery, etc.. In life, the writer may Rosenberg to create your image, change it or challenge it with statements, actions or publications. After his death, this image will remain leyéndose modified if its text. This is what happens, particularly with the so-called 'classic', whose image is often much better known than his texts: how many people have heard of Rabelais, Dante, Cervantes, of his characters, without having read the smallest line of text?
The historical evolution of the images of subject A is usually very slow. Sometimes suffer sudden changes: on the occasion of the centenary of the birth or death of this writer, arising amounts of studies on the figure may be significantly modified and have unusual consequences in the literature. A phenomenon of this kind took place with the celebration of the tercentenary of the English poet Luis de Góngora in 1927: a group of young poets, called in his figure, rejuvenated interest in the cultured and hermetic poetry, proclaiming a new poetic art that was revolutionize English poetry of both worlds. The critics gave this group of poets called the Generation of 27 ". Since then, the subject to which "hard core" is a Don Luis de Gongora y Argote includes everything you said, three centuries after the poet's death Cordoba, a group of writers who, in turn, would become mythical figures of literature.

What about Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Molière, Goethe, and Sophocles, Virgil, Lucretius, Plato? Their 'hard core', often seriously limited by the scarcity of biographical data- have grown with the contributions of many readings, interpretations, deceptions, myths, imitators, impersonators, illustrators, adapters, that the image we have, after centuries, these universal figures, has little to do with the core generator. Three

particularly interesting to reflect on the subject A are the following: the oral tradition works, the works whose author has "invented", and anonymous works.

Thousand and One Nights, one of the most universal, translated or adapted in almost all languages, is a monument of the oral tradition patchwork of stories that were agglutinating around a central core, born in India, sent by the Persian empire compiled in Arabic and translated much later in Europe. The subject A in The Thousand and One Nights is not built around the person, real or supposed, an author, even by several authors. Represents, ideally, the nucleus of a verbal output generator in which all elements (materials, themes, represented worlds, characters, beliefs, narrative schemes, figures, etc.) Are both collective and multiple times in spaces, variables, and remarkably resilient. Transmitted orally for centuries, translated, adapted, belatedly transcribed in Arabic, the set is built progressively through time, space and multiple civilizations. Finally revealed to Europe by Antoine Galland in the early eighteenth century, knows a great posterity. However, the absence of a unifying core of the subject A is to be finely adjusted thanks to an ingenious subterfuge, I speak the prologue that gives the overall framework of the stories the character of Shahrazad, who, night after night, the Sultan has the fabulous stories to save her from death.

Most, Shahrazad had read books, records, legends and stories of ancient kings in remote villages. They also say he had a thousand books of stories for people of ages past, kings of Antiquity and poets. And it was very eloquent and very pleasant to hear. (7)

Shahraz Although at no time be regarded as the author of his stories, it is, however, the "hard core" of the subject to the set: it is the subject mediator between the collective set built by oral tradition and the individual receiver, in this case, is represented by two characters who listen Doniazada sister, confidante and accomplice, and the Sultan, ready to kill his wife. In addition, the storyteller has stored in its memory all the wisdom of the people and the art of passing. The remarkable productivity of this prologue frame should be, precisely, in role in the economy of the whole narrative.

secular well-known is the controversy surrounding the author of The Iliad and The Odyssey: Homer really existed or are these epics result of oral tradition, like so many others? If Homer has existed, is the author of both works and there was a second Homer? The archaeological discoveries that have occurred since the nineteenth century allowed a more precise knowledge of Mediterranean civilizations from the third millennium before our era, but have not solved the riddle Homer, rather they have become more complex the problem. That has existed or not a poet named Homer, his individual existence has been for centuries and evidence It still is. That name, which, curiously, is Greek for "pledge, testimony, hostage" and "blind" - represents the necessary unifying core subject A, it matters little that there is no biography behind, no document, no characteristic, if not the blindness, expressed in the name, physical blindness and spiritual clairvoyance while the divinely inspired poet. If the Author did not exist, had to invent it. Everyone knows the extraordinary wealth of the figure of Homer, paragon of poets, celebrated from remote antiquity and for ever on.

The case of anonymous works is complex. If one considers the time before the Renaissance, there are many works of author unnamed, unsigned, in painting, architecture and literature. Not that there is no notion of "creative artist", but it was felt that the real source of the work was beyond the artist, which was only the mediator, was the inspiration of the Muses, the works of great masters of the past, holders of the auctoritas, the chain of tradition, the creative breath of God. Subject A did not require a single core because the individual did not stop the generating function, the real core was the source where the artist was their creative mediator.

Later in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in France for example, some important works were published without name of author: the Provincial moral maxims, La Princesse de Cleves, characters, L'Esprit des Lois, most of the works of Voltaire. It was a policy of circumstances (political censorship, moral or social) and of short duration, except in the case of L'Imitation de Jésus-Christ whose theme required, in a way that will clear the individual author ..

An interesting example is the life of Lazarillo de Tormes (1554), a tiny gem of English literature that spawned the Picaresque. The story, which resembles an autobiography in six innings Summary Folk-whose sources have been brought to light, "is directed to a narratee no identity. This narrative scheme, particularly efficient, helps explain himself that this masterpiece has remained stubbornly anonymous despite repeated labors of scholars. The narrator character who, from the foreword, claims its dual function and actantial narrator, is the son of his works much more than their parents who did not inherit either the name or even fate. Furthermore, as later it will also Teresa of Avila writes her life at the request of a powerful backer who dedicates:
beseech your Grace that you receive poor service from a person who did richer if his power and desire to conform. And as Your Mercy write is to write very details of the matter at length, parescióme decided not to start in the middle, but the first, because you have a complete picture of me, and also because they consider the nobles inherited states how little they must , Fortune was with them as part and how much did those who, being so opposite, with strength and skill came to fruition paddling (8).

We therefore admirably described in the Foreword, the entire fate of a text: subject A, production process, subject Ù. Subject A is equipped with a solid core composed of a triple instance: author / narrator / Person, based on the authority of a limited partner, anonymous, as God commands, as all backer refers, ultimately, to God. What added to this an author's name?

Subject Ù

Why we are concerned that the map is included on the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of The Thousand and One Nights? Don Quixote is the reader of Don Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I have found the cause: such investments suggest that if the characters in a fiction can be readers or spectators, we, their readers or viewers, characters can be fictional. In 1833, Carlyle said that the universal history is a sacred book, infinite, that all men write and read and try to understand, and where, too, are written (9).
(Borges, 1952)

The first form of the subject or the splitting of subject A. During the production process, the subject A subject is unfolded in a text viewer that is developing. In the case of a personal diary, the first form is also unique in that, by definition, this text does not have more readers than its own author. Apart from such exception, the text is intended for a receiver to a literary text is not determined. In other words, any individual may take the role Ù without the producer of the text involved. The text is the bearer of a function or that can be claimed by any individual observer.
is to emphasize that this situation is very particular communication and radically different from the current communication situation, the conversation, for example. In this, the speaker produces a message intended for a very specific addressee. This message is strongly determined by the addressee, one not addressed in the same way a child, a close friend, a stranger. Moreover, the message should normally be able to be easily and unambiguously decoded by the recipient. Nothing like in the case of a literary text. The recipient is multiple and indeterminate, in whole or in part. Course, there are literary texts that have been written for a more or less certain: children's literature, theater libertarian, the novelette. However, it is a more or less broad sector of society, in no case subject is accurate. We can therefore say that the subject or is nominated by the text inscribed on it as a function and not as a subject. The text
semiotopo includes a feature that each subject Ù Ù effectively assume their own way, according to the characteristics of idiotopes, and depending on circumstances and context of reading. The conditions for entering this function or are specific to each genre, have been particularly studied in the narrative under the concept of variants otes narratee and Reader in fabula.
For now say this: a text posits the recipient as a condition sine qua non of their own specific communication skills, but also of their own potential significance. In other words, a text is delivered to someone able to update it, even when not expected (or not want) that there is someone specifically or empirically (10).

During the preparation of the work, there is a double dialogue: dialogue between the text and all written before (only write books on other books about other books), and the dialogue between author and reader model. Theoretically this works as Lector in fabula or earlier in the open work, and no I was the inventor.
may be that the author write in a public empirical thinking, as did the founders of the modern novel, Richardson, Fielding or Defoe, who wrote for merchants and their wives, but Joyce also writes for an audience when you think in a reader ideal ideal affected by insomnia. In both cases, you create a target audience that is there in front of the door, or you propose to write for a reader to come, writing is constructed through the text, their own Reader model (11).
(Eco, 1985, p.55-56)

What I think is important to note, is the active and creative role of the subject Ù. This, involved in the process of decoding / interpretation that implies reading, is charged with a very delicate operation, a real mental alchemy that allows the advent final text. This operation, while eminently eminently individual and social, as all acts of language, is unique but can be repeated indefinitely by a myriad of subjects. The text which comes in this operation is unique, will never be identical to itself, for many readings that can sucitar.

textual theories a cause always left to assume that the communication must be understood as a unique address relative to the text to the reader. However, reading is dynamic interaction between text and reader. Because the text of linguistic signs and their combinations can not play their cause but acts that allow the transposition of the text in the reader's consciousness. This means that certain acts caused by the internal control beyond the text. Such a hiatus founded the creativity of
recepción.12 Contrary to what our habits of mind let us imagine the reader is relegated to a passive recipient in the dead end of a communication chain management unique. Active observer is a subject that allows the advent of the text as an act eminently complex and creative. This is not to say that the author and the text does not exist, and there are only different interpretations: any theory that gives one of the three poles of textual communication preeminent status will necessarily unbalanced. It is about recognizing each of these components status, function, operation, and analyze their interactions.

Subject observer acts on the text that decodes, constructs and interprets performing some of their virtues and potential, and in so doing, acts on the subject to modify it in various ways. The reader represents all the subject or is only the "hard core" which come to add multiple items, other readings, interpretations, illustrations, adaptations to know more or less, and that will influence the reading. One can imagine Sinbad the Sailor through pictures or movies known, when one reads such an episode from Don Quixote come to mind him the engravings of Gustave Doré, the rooms of the Cid evoke the voice of Gérard Philippe, and how to read Oedipus Rex regardless of his fortune psychotherapy? The longer the text, the more it grows the subject or, even if a reader does not know all the literature about the Divine Comedy, all tables engravings, which has sucite adaptations, it is clearly not read the text with a look "innocent." You can even observe a paradoxical phenomenon, but frequent, and the reading of the text is often avoided in favor of indirect knowledge through various effects of receipt of a famous work.

case of reading an unfamiliar text, and recently the subject or is going to be more succinct, but not read through the eyes of a newborn. Indeed, every reader has experience of previous readings, has at its idiotopes a more or less rich in knowledge and conscious and unconscious habits will shape their reading of a text unknown. The reading process involves not only the recognition of linguistic signs, but also the recognition of other more complex semiological components, compared with other texts read. If the new text will appear to others and read, their understanding will be facilitated, their recognition and rapid integration. If it is very different, appear "original", surprising, unsettling for the reader, their recognition and interpretation will be more arduous and will require more effort to adapt by the reader. According to the particularities of the subject Ù idiotopes and circumstances of the reading, the reader may feel this situation as a stimulant and euphoric, or as angry and dysphoric. In the first case, the potential of the subject Ù idiotopes will enrich and enable new discoveries, in the latter case there will be rejection and stagnation of the subject Ù idiotopes. Stages of learning should normally predispose the subject to become receptive to new developments and able to gradually enhance its potential for recognition and integration. However, it is clear that energy must be invested to recognize and integrate different from text already read, is much higher than that required to interpret something known, so the new scripts, original, or different from the Most published texts, have great difficulty finding an audience. The same thing happens, as we know, for music or painting.
text Semiotopo

The drive to communicate that we postulate the origin of the text will be embodied in a language, in a series of linkages of syntax, phonic, graphic, rhetoric, literary genre, or in a configuration very semiological semiotopo call complex. This notion becomes the equivalent of what the biotope for a living.
The semiotopo is the nodal spread of meaning, the meeting place of the two subjects of the text. The subject A, as a producer of the text, shapes the semiotopo; the subject Ω, as an observer, decodes and interprets the various elements of semiotopo. Both play a creative activity in textual communication system.
The semiotopo is fundamentally linguistic, so it inherits the complexity, polysemy, indeterminacy of language. Obviously, the text is first semiotopo product idiotopes subject A, but this does not mean it should be stressed that the subject semiotopo A totally dominates the text it produces. We must not forget two important factors: firstly the unconscious dimension of idiotopes A, and moreover the indeterminacy of the codes used (language, rhetoric, etc.) that is self-organizing systems, or creators of new and unexpected meanings. We know that not always say exactly and only what we wanted to say is obvious from the banal phrases of daily life, much more so in a complex text. Moreover, we use natural languages \u200b\u200bare infinitely wiser and more creative than any individual who uses them.
addition to its linguistic base itself, the text semiotopo also includes annexes fields: literary series with which the text is related, historical-cultural field within which is included, for example. This historical-cultural field should not be confused with Ω idiotopes counterpart. Indeed, the text semiotopo includes at least two types of historical-cultural fields: first the context within which produces the text, and partly historical-cultural field referred to the text.

The first type of historical-cultural field is not usually explicit, known as the producer of the text, although neither knows it thoroughly. The critical reader has to reconstruct the post, with all the difficulties, uncertainties and misunderstandings this may pose, especially with a text chronologically or spatially distant.
The second type of historical-cultural field, the reference is explicit: it is the chronotope or space-time framework in which it develops the story told in a novel or a play, for example. It is easier to rebuild, however it is not obvious to interpret. Always have a relationship with the first, whether a relationship of analogy (the story told is set in a framework that reflects the circumstances of text production: autobiographical novel or testimonial, for example), whether in a relationship of distortion or less marked (historical novel, science fiction novel.) In both cases, we must not forget that the production environment will inevitably influence the text, in general, and the context represented, in particular: thus, the representation of the life of a people in the Middle Ages by a writer of the twentieth century must be interpreted in relation to the production context (XX century), not only with regard to the context represented (Middle Ages). The

semiotopo text also includes everything that relates to the transmission channel from the physical act of writing to the finished product. It is true that we pay little attention to those aspects of the text, unless it is a valuable manuscript in a single edition or an inscription on the marble. We are so marked by the Gutenberg-IBM culture that we forget that some texts were never intended to be played, and, therefore, the play changes its nature. This leads us to believe that each of the material forms it takes on a text changes its semiotopo and is thus, strictly speaking, a different text. The

semiotopo text is not, as we have just seen, only tributary of the producers. In particular, all subsequent amendments to the production of the manuscript by the writer (most common form of text production), whether it is a parchment manuscript, a school notebook or a microdrive, are the responsibility of other subjects, which are also subject A longer involved in the production process. Even without mentioning the substantial changes that may introduce other subjects A (the editor of a manuscript, for example), we can say that the individual producer of a text is always a plural subject.

is obvious that the harder a text, but suffers his semiotopo changes: the case of the masterpieces of literature have known multiple copies, editions, critical editions with introduction and explanatory notes, reviews and analysis, expurgated editions or upgraded, illustrations, translations and adaptations. Thus we see how far the semiotopo of a test is an open, moving, full of virtues that the individual producer could not suspect.

The semiotopo potential significance of a text is far superior to the interpretative abilities of any real reader. The semiotopo is a field of potentialities and each of the readings done, update some of these potentialities, and only a part, depending on the idiotopes of the observing subject and the context of the observation process.

The need heuristic analysis of the components is undisputed, however, not forget that whenever he prevails, the virtual place of work disappears. The decomposition of the work into its constituent parts and analyzing these taken in isolation would be no problem if the relationship between text and reader follow exactly the model of information theory about the relationship between sender and recipient. This would be a common code, rigorously defined in the content, ensuring receipt of the message, as this process communication only flows from the emitter to the receiver. But in the case of a literary work is an interaction: the reader "receives" the meaning of particular content, while it constitutes a sense. If we admit that this is so, we must consider that the basic conditions for such interaction reside in text structures. These are of special nature. Although these structures belong to the text, I assume its role in the text, but on the sensitivity of lector.13

(Iser, 1997, 49-50)

The text semiotopo has features that we believe fixed stable because they come from the subject A. We have the habit of regarding a text, once written and published, is unchangeable for all eternity. Such belief is that a text is a self-enclosed, but not, the text is an open complex system. Which means that it is self-organizing (creator of new and unforeseen meanings), and is in conjunction with other open complex systems (in particular with the subject receiver). Inevitably, Ω the subject, which is intended to decode and interpret the text semiotopo, will modify during the observation process. Ω First, because the subject will perform only part of the potentialities of semiotopo field of text: each reader will make his semiotopo, semiotopo to be different from another reader. The same reader, in a second reading, will perform a different semiotopo made in its first reading. The context of the observation process also modifies the realization or actualization of semiotopo.
In the case of a text which is subject to multiple readings and especially comments, critical studies, translations, adaptations, ETC. the semiotopo of this text will find an increase and enrichment of his field of potentialities thanks to many interpretations: is the fate of the works forming part of national cultural heritage or universal.

Coordinating Council For Youth

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Bmw Valve Cover Gasket Replace Cost

Monday, October 13, 2008

Dog Food For Rescue Discounts