In their essay "Deformance and Interpretation," Lisa Samuels and Jerome McGann follow Emily Dickinson's suggestion that "Reading Backward" could "overtake the mind": "Did you ever read one of her Poems backward, because the plunge from the front overturned you? I sometimes (often have, many times) have-a Something overtakes the Mind." 1 Dickinson was "overturned" by the usual approach to a poem; and so she read backward, with the result that, "a Something overtakes the Mind." There are mental and embodied consequences to reversing the reading procedure, and Samuels and McGann pursue reading backward as a path toward what they call "deformative criticism." 2 Ultimately, in being overtaken, the critic can move beyond interpretation, or the search for a singular meaning in the creative work. Instead, deformative criticism takes seriously the performative aspects of the poetic object; actually reading a poem backward illuminates the fact that interpretation is a secondary activity, based on the pre-existing "systemic intelligibility" of the poem. 3 Importantly, the poem's "systemic intelligibility" is not determined by the author of the work; because poems are not primarily communicative texts, there is no real need to maintain authorial intention. Samuels and McGann highlight, however, that most traditional literary criticism effectively reifies the poetic text: Critical and interpretive limits are thus regularly established … [and] taken as inviolable. From an interpretive point of view, this assumption brackets off from attention crucial features of imaginative works, features wherein the elemental forms of meaning are built and elaborated. These forms are so basic and conventionally governed-they are alphabetical and diacritical; they are the rules for character formation, character arrangement, and textual space, as well as for the structural forms of words, phrases, and higher morphemic and phonemic unitsthat readers tend to treat them as preinterpretive and precritical. In truth, however, they comprise the operating system of language, the basis that drives and supports the front-end software. That computing metaphor explains why most readers do not fool around with these levels of language. 4 This passage asserts that critics take a poem's form as absolutely "inviolable," as a stable and permanent fact of the work. Samuels and McGann argue that as a result of this reification, critics thus "bracket off" the fact that language is made of letters, which themselves have shapes and normative appearances. These letters in turn form words, whose spelling is (for the most part) fixed; and set phrases and idiomatic expressions give structure to linguistic communication. The authors salvage words, phrases (etc.) from the obscurity of technique; they explain these supposedly "preinterpretive" aspects of linguistic creativity with a computational metaphor: letter-shapes are like a computer program; they are the "operating system of language" that "drives and supports the front-end software." What deformative criticism o...