“The writer writes in a language and in a logic whose proper system, laws, and life his discourse by definition cannot dominate absolutely. He uses them only by letting himself, after a fashion and up to a point, be governed by a system. And the reading must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of the language that he uses” (1691).
When the reader begins the process of analysing a text, the presence of the author is almost nonexistent. Except that the author wrote the text, the reader has little knowledge of what he/she may have intended the meaning to be. Language, therefore, is a system that cannot be controlled by even the producer of a text. The author’s intentionality, instead, seems to be governed by the language. His/her “systems, laws [and] discourse” contribute to the textual process (1691). However, these conventions cannot control the meaning intended or perceived by the reader either. “The being held within” does not always manifest itself the way in which the author intends. The reader, based on the linguistic conventions presented, would have no way of knowing. This is why reader must analyse the patterns of language being used within the text during critical reading. The text stands alone–in itself and of itself.