We must remember that writing is both verb and noun, both process and product. And just as physicists can’t precisely identify the position of a particle without giving up the ability to know its momentum with the same precision (and vice versa), so one can’t look at writing and see it as both performance and artifact of performance at the same time. To observe the act of writing is to look away, even if only momentarily, from the text (and vice versa). Attempts to think about a work of writing as either process or product limit our ability to bring the fullness of the thing under comprehension all at once. When we look at writing as a process, trying to get a handle on what it is writers know how to do and how they’ve done it, the clarity of our vision grows dim regarding the final product. As Heisenberg suggests, whenever we shift our gaze from one aspect of an object to another of its qualities, we still see the object, just differently, and we may still be aware of the first quality we looked at, but now we see it only peripherally. The same is true when we consider only the final product of the writing process, trying to apprehend the meaning we believe it contains, or to judge the text’s formal characteristics. We must necessarily restrict our consciousness of all the activity that went into the text’s production. To adopt, from moment to moment, as we must, one perspective rather than the other will always leave us with an incomplete understanding of the object of study. We can approach a sense of an object’s wholeness of meaning only through successive examinations from different angles, but we can never assume all viewpoints simultaneously, and thus full understanding in a single moment of perception ever eludes us. Theories of multiperspectivalism notwithstanding, this outcome is inevitable.