This reminds me of my experience reading fragmented work, such as that of Sappho. The reader is forced to fill out certain parts in their head, collaborating on something that is eventually unique and more particular to the individual.

I like this description of a Text, as often the most transcendent works of art are those that offend or provoke, rather than giving an easy feeling of enjoyment. This reminds me of the Brechtian idea of alienation, creating a piece that distances the audience, in turn getting them to engage and think about it.

The text has a life of its own as soon as the author has finished writing it, perhaps even before. When one thinks of the Iliad, they do not picture Homer, but rather a scene of war. The Text is more of a feeling when one is reminded of it, not a recollection of fact.

The question of genre is a profound one. To take the example of music, certain records have transcended any genre put before them, to create a completely new sound, which makes them potential outliers and important works. This seems to be the case with literary Texts as well. The scramble to place these into new genres is often met with disdain, which puts into question the notion of genre in the first place.

Passive vs Active. A Text becomes one once interacted with, whether through writing, discussion, etc., teasing out the specific qualities of it that makes it so important. A Work can be experienced passively, as merely reading it can give one what they need from it.

It's interesting to note that one of the most important characteristics of a Text is timelessness, not novelty. This becomes clear as soon as you look a syllabi for classes like Lit Hum that include reading spanning 3000 years.

In a time when we are constantly told to separate the art from the artist, the idea of being conscious of one's relation to the author of a text while reading it is a fascinating one, which could possibly illuminate parts of the text that would otherwise be read differently.

The need for the destruction of traditional notions for the use of the interdisciplinary is fascinating. Does this imply that one can only bring together fields of study by razing an old one, or can these traditional forms bind with the new to create a syncretic field?

Mutation often connotes a foreign and even damaging change to an established and known entity. It is interesting to frame interdisciplinary work as a sort of problem-solving measure or cure that can only be used in critical moments.