Morphy: A Textual Romance

Once upon a time Text I he shezethey it was born. Text’s mother was Author, who had textual intercourse with Audience. Text never felt “right” about himself. Text's My His HerZir TheirIts parents often disagreed. “I meant this,” Author said. “You meant that,” Audience countered. “Texts are open to interpretation and meaning is never fixed,” Audience announced. “Texts are closed to interpretation and meaning can be pretty fixed,” Author whined. Text I He SheZe TheyIt desired beyond both/and: to be both open and closed:: Text My His HerZir TheirIts desired to be fixed::: To be as/if things were either wrong or write, and neither wrong nor write all at once. Author’s textual frustrations with Audience and a commitment to Author's my his herzir theirits child's son's daughter's progeny'skid's baby'swhelp's preference made the decision to morph and transmutate easy.

Interfacial #1: Transmorphation

In some these those amazingmovingunderstated"immutable" words, Text didn’t have a choice but to be either a self or the self, rather than a bunch a selves. Text’s identity was static rather than dynamic: It was "unmorphable.” The big assumption is that Audience shouldn’t see changes to a text while reading a text or come back to an original, authentic text that's changed. Author may have wanted to include, say, and argue other things at the same time in the same way. The value is usually meaning, not meanings that could be composed. Author is identity. Not identities. Intertextuality is favored over intratextuality. Intersectionality over Intrasectionality. Outside is brought to the text. Inside stays put. One identity is favored in thought processes in a text, when a text itself can be identities of meaning. Basically, just consider how a text or Text doesn't have to be a tome of a singular purpose with hedges and stuff. Text is more like a place to have in more metamodern terms Everything Everywhere All at Once. A text can be singular and multiple at the same time: An oxymoron of itself. Version ideas for equity, for the ethical. Unversion them and complicate them for complicating's sake, for helpin' an audince think more/less differently.Transmorphation is Author showing Audience textual dyanmicisim and how digital texts can fuck mess play lovesmartworkstruggleidentifygaslightcooperate with you in good ways.

The transmorphation in the moment let’s Audience bare share care dare witness to choices being mades and meanings being choiced.

Interfacial #2: Transmutation

In repetitive words, Text is often assumed to be the same whenever one returns to it. Like you’ll read the same words and get the gist of something when you return. Not to disagree with any theories about how texts are experienced differently and/or similarly upon rereading or the ways to reread a text.

But what if a text was more literally in the figurative figuratively in the literal meta-metaphorically pataphysicallymetamodernaly never the same always different kinda the same sometimes mostly minorly differentmajorly different in minor ways ?

Because Text doesn’t need to be the same (again, literally in the figurative) over and over moreover and moreover in other words never and never.

How would you even deal with citation in a text you may never find the same parts again?

The transmutation of a text keeps rereading backgrounded. Audience is availed to always read, tempted to rely on memory, but gaslit into not knowing for sure. Transmutation is the incarnate of the uncanny.

Will you see what happens below? Have you left already?