One of my big takeaways when studying media was that language is not deterministic. In writing, we encode thoughts and ideas that readers later decode-- some more successfully (with more accuracy to the writer's intentions) than others. The same inputs delivered into people's minds rarely if ever produce the same output.
Such an interesting topic today, Charles. As you say, what we read is "filtered" through childhood experiences and emotional states, yes, and every thing else - our level of education, our linguistic sophistication, our religion, our politics , our aspirations, our current concerns, etc. Here is a rather interesting article on Schema Theory, a concept I am sure you are well-versed in. You and your readers might like some of it, as it relates to the topic of this post - in more general terms.
It really sparked a lot of emotion from within me. I could not agree more with your words, we writers and readers do have that intimate relationship that no one can ever explain.
“What’s needed, instead of help, is inwardness, a collapsing into the self, it is centripetal, implosive—it is a practice of introspection that just might uncover your most intimate sensations.” I like this line, especially “collapsing into the self” because that is exactly what I do when I write. Also, while we want readers to understand our words and message, sometimes we might unwittingly spark unrelated ideas or even epiphanies, and this isn’t such a bad byproduct of our efforts.
Why does it bother you to misunderstand people? Why does it bother you more to misunderstand someone else than for someone else to misunderstand you? Both things happen all the time, even between lovers and family members.
One of my big takeaways when studying media was that language is not deterministic. In writing, we encode thoughts and ideas that readers later decode-- some more successfully (with more accuracy to the writer's intentions) than others. The same inputs delivered into people's minds rarely if ever produce the same output.
Such an interesting topic today, Charles. As you say, what we read is "filtered" through childhood experiences and emotional states, yes, and every thing else - our level of education, our linguistic sophistication, our religion, our politics , our aspirations, our current concerns, etc. Here is a rather interesting article on Schema Theory, a concept I am sure you are well-versed in. You and your readers might like some of it, as it relates to the topic of this post - in more general terms.
http://web.mit.edu/pankin/www/Schema_Theory_and_Concept_Formation.pdf
What a wonderful read!
It really sparked a lot of emotion from within me. I could not agree more with your words, we writers and readers do have that intimate relationship that no one can ever explain.
Thank you Charles!
“What’s needed, instead of help, is inwardness, a collapsing into the self, it is centripetal, implosive—it is a practice of introspection that just might uncover your most intimate sensations.” I like this line, especially “collapsing into the self” because that is exactly what I do when I write. Also, while we want readers to understand our words and message, sometimes we might unwittingly spark unrelated ideas or even epiphanies, and this isn’t such a bad byproduct of our efforts.
Why does it bother you to misunderstand people? Why does it bother you more to misunderstand someone else than for someone else to misunderstand you? Both things happen all the time, even between lovers and family members.