Words can easily be in an eerie condition: There can be allusional ambiguity,
for instance, resonance of lexicality, etymological (historical) aura. How figurative is overt figuration?: iconic? metaphoric? ironic?

Beyond word context, there may be ambiguity about what the fully-relevant context of narrating is, implying ambiguity of writer engagement.

Is there something particularly authorial (author self-implicative) about the narrat-ing, apart from lexical resonance or immanent narrative context?

A writer implicitly expresses a background of life (or authoriality) such that present meaning may echo earlier writing, thereby giving to a present intertextual aura.

All of this is good for creative expression—or for opening sensibility—but may be inconvenient for someone needing clarity.

What is validly needed? What is desired?

There’s a continuum between what clearly anchors (e.g., a crystalline concept) and what evinces (e.g., an ambiguous gravity of cohering).

Welcoming novelty may unwittingly have a comfort zone that becomes faced with
its boundaries through narrative pretense that is difficult (and through challenge that is horizonal), perhaps causing a reader annoyed resistance to self reflectivity.

A boundary today may be higher/broader than last year, yet still a bounded zone of appeal.

Will present engagements let the ecosphere of understanding be better (higher, broader, more appreciatively complex) next season?

For many readers, of course, being drawn into resonant woods is just pleasure,
not to be readily resolved (which gets boring), but to be engaged in new ways, then renewal of that. One may always gladly feel drawn into intimacies of sensibility again in again—more novel challenge, better engaging mystery, portentious eros of eeriness.

< previous -|- Next: “I understand”