ABSTRACT
The possibility of non-literary readings of ‘literary’ texts indicates that literary commentary involves a specific training of readers. Whether literary or otherwise, different readings of texts indicate different trainings, not simply differences in subjective (private) points of view of a given text Catherine Greenfield extends this notion of reading as a form of social training by pointing out that it is not predicated upon a subject-it is not conceived as the relation between a subject, or a reader, and a text. Therefore a ‘readership’ is not defined as the space of a reader qua subject of knowledge, but as a space occupied by available and discontinuous, heterogeneous discursive forms. In a more ironic, but not so disconnected twist, most often associated with liberationist politics, author also see a reverse process in attempts to distinguish a ‘true’ homosexuality within ‘these thousand aberrant sexualities’.
