notes from methodology course notes

Texts do not carry meaning. They merely provide clues to be used be readers in reconstructing the original meanings of writers.

Texts trigger meaning in the mind (schemata) of the reader = negotiation of meaning between text and reader = interactive process.

Reading comprehension is thus an interactive process between the reader and the text - the reader is required to fit the clues provided in the text to his/her own background knowledge.

What does this imply for experimental writing?
Notion of abjection?
If language carries no meaning but only triggers meaning, how does that apply to texts that seek to subvert meaning and/or narrative?

Language that has "no meaning": The confusion of deciphering the meaning causes the reader to continually renegotiate the meaning. The work becomes a continuous work-in-progress in the mind of the reader, which results in an "open-ended" text, a text with no closure. This is problematic because it opposes our internalized dichotomies, which in turn bothers most readers.

This leads me to two questions that, I think, imply notions of receptivity and readership:
1) Why do we read? What do we expect from it?
2) What, in the writing itself, makes reading difficult? In other words, what writing techniques are used to subvert meaning? More importantly to me, what are the techniques used by Djuna and Anne?