part one: some of you reading this message right now are looking at serif type face, some of you at sans-serif, depending [i guess] on a combination of your software and settings, my software and settings, and other cyber matters way too arcane for my understanding . . . but the typeface in which you are reading this text, though obvious, probably in no way shapes what you take this message to 'mean' . . . there are, additionally, blatant features of this message that are NOT functions of cyberspace but are clearly 'intended' by me, the writer or 'author' of the message, that still are likely to be taken by you, the reader, as irrelevant to the 'meaning' of the inquiry . . . perhaps the most obvious among these is the absence of upper case letters in short, there seem to be features of this message that are not aspects of its 'meaning' as usually construed . . . for the moment let me call these 'marks' as opposed to 'signs' for the question is whether they are signs at all (admittedly, each of these marks, taken as an index, does signify something . . . the typeface may be read as evidence about the way computers work, or about software design . . . the lack of capitals might say something about my intelligence or upbringing . . . since all of these 'marks' are so over-determined they may be seen as indexes [indices] of an endless variety of causes . . . the index, we might say, opens into an endless universe of forensics and divination . . . still, all of these potential indexical meanings are not part of normative reading processes, and my guess is you are paying attention to the typeface of the message before you [if indeed you are] only because it has been explicitly called to your attention by the meaning of the words encoded in that typeface) part two: the features of a text that the reader/listener/viewer attends to as part of the normative process of apprehension is shaped, at least to some extent, by the physical characteristics of the medium . . . a crude and reductive and obvious example: if i am making a movie and show a character's face and there is a nose on that face, most readers would not take the existence of that nose be significant [in the literal sense of signifying something about this specific movie that you needed to keep in mind] . . . but if i were writing a novel an i included the sentence "In the middle of his face there was a nose," almost all readers would take that as significant . . . in other words: the presence of the nose on the face in a conventional film does not signify . . . now i know that this example is crude and reductive and needs a lot more explanation and qualification . . . but i think most readers of this message will understand the larger point . . . specifically, that [depending on the medium] there are aspects of a message that are not relevant to normative ways of decoding its meaning . . . another real, rather than hypothetical, example . . . in most print messages--like this one--the shape of the text on the page [or screen] does not matter, and you could reformat this message with longer or shorter lines and you would take it that the message remained the same . . . but in george herbert's 'iconic' poetry, for example 'the altar' in which the lines are laid out on the page in the shape of an altar, the shape of text does signify the point is merely that texts, understood as material objects, have qualities or characteristics that are not part of their signifying machinery . . . these characteristics are, we might say, inert rather than active ingredients in the signifying process the question: actually two questions . . . first, does anyone know of any conventional way of talking about this whole issue? . . . as my repeated use of inverted commas above, and the choice of that bizarre phrase 'signifying machinery' will attest, talking about these things is very slippery . . . but surely these matters have been addressed, and i'm wondering whether prior discussions have led to an accepted vocabulary for dealing with these matters more efficiently . . . second, i would be most grateful for bibliographical references to helpful prior discussions many thanks, in advance, for any comments or suggestions mike ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]