Go to The Impossibility Of Knowing
- Add a comment
- Go to If A Reader Doesn't Understand A Writer, Whose Fault Is It?
What a hoot, Mongeaux!
Surely no one would baffle anyone with baloney and then call it brilliance. :)) ----But language is a difficult thing. I saw it on TV, it must be true: An old Startrek episode had Spock's body taken over by this evil thingy. (That poor guy. He always a problem with that.) But the evil thingy said this, essentially: "This phenomenon you call language. Very powerful. Yet is anyone of you the master of it?" I would side with those who place the burden on the writer to do his or her best, and then realize from the get-go that it a luxury to be understood.
posted by
Novelvision2020
on January 4, 2006 at 12:30 AM
| link to this | reply
MayB
Then it is working! MWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
posted by
Mongeaux
on January 3, 2006 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Mongeaux, that is very deep and profound
is that what I am supposed to think?
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 7:39 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
How repteloquatiate of you. I am my own uncle. Do you see the swan, or is he a dragon?
posted by
Mongeaux
on January 3, 2006 at 7:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Mongeaux, excellent response
Sometimes I feel like I am doing that and sometimes I even seem to get away with it.
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
Sometimes a writer is better off penning artistic gibberish that they
know the readers won't get. That way his mundane ideas, poor story telling skills and flat characters appear less dreadful and the reader is intimidated into thinking he doesn't get it because he's not smart enough.
I am counting on that myself when I become famous, but it hasn't worked so far.
posted by
Mongeaux
on January 3, 2006 at 7:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Straightforward. True. Everything can't be
sliced and diced first
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 7:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Tapsel-T
I am very like you with that. I read something and then dash off to read more and learn about it. We can't already know about EVERYTHING. Then YES, sometimes I deduce that it wasn't my lack of knowledge but that the writing was poor
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB, I often just figure that it is me if I don't understand a writer and begin to try to figure out what is being said by educating myself on the subject. Sometimes I then decide that the difficulty was not mine but with the writer.
posted by
TAPS.
on January 3, 2006 at 5:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Hey, MayB Life is about engaging with the troubles and getting over them,
ain't it?
Talking of communication, I remember an English teacher we had in High School who gave us such interpretation to the poetry we read that we sometimes wondered if the poet himself or herself had thought as much.
But it was interesting to know about this art of interpreting and trying to find meanings in a string of words.
posted by
Straightforward
on January 3, 2006 at 5:47 PM
| link to this | reply
I love your closing line. Ain't it the truth!! 
posted by
Cunningham_Smith07
on January 3, 2006 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Mayb,
I had a boss who used to say, "the burden of communication rests on the communicator". So, I'm leaning towards thinking that if more than one reader is confused on the same point or issue, then the writer needs to do some tweaking. Maybe get a few opinions?
posted by
Blanche.
on January 3, 2006 at 3:04 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
Amen to nothing in life giving you more trouble than humas, MayB. Samantha is a pain in the butt, but I get more trouble from Ell - thank goodness. I would tend to think it was the writer's fault should the reader not understand, and if there happened to be a wheelbarrow full of quotation marks, I'd use them.
posted by
johnmacnab
on January 3, 2006 at 1:31 PM
| link to this | reply
MerryAnne, long ago I had an English boyfriend who used to say:
"There's nowt so queer as folk".
I never had to look far to agree with him. Hmm. I wonder, where is he now. Not blogging I hope
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 11:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Mrs Bradrock, thanks. Did that thought ever return?
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 11:05 AM
| link to this | reply
blackcat30, some do I guess, not me
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 11:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Mama.Dragonfly, good to see you
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:52 AM
| link to this | reply
food4thought, this is especially the case with
humor/humour
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Neither and both littlemspickles
It sounds like we are averting the question doesn't it? The other answer could be: It depends ....
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Brisbane artist
I have thought about it like that too. It is fascinating and sometimes funny
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariala,an analogy: if a diner in a restaurant complains are they at fault?
How can you know that everyone in the restaurant found everything about their meal to their complete satisfaction? I don't think we ever really know and the reason that someone who follows up on something will stand out from the crowd is because most people will leave the restaurant and say "thank you and good night".
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Malcolm
I guess some people like playing games
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks DrJPT
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
"Kudos to a writer who's produced a work worthy of the investigation"
Thirty-something, I agree. I see that as a good thing too and yet often people react negatively when some one is interested enough to discuss what they have written. Why else do we write but to promote thought and interaction?
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Pat_B
Can we be the only two who are not interested in Paris Hilton? Why do we not care? Why do so many care?
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 10:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Here's the thing...
We all have our own mental dictionary where we learned meanings inside our family & friends circle growing up. Different strokes for different folks... I'll never understand why people think the Three Stooges are funny or that Paris Hilton is interestsing. :)pat
posted by
Pat_B
on January 3, 2006 at 9:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Yes, again
And that subject of agreement is endlessly fascinating to me. I'm a poet (a trying-to-be-not-too-academic one, though I studied in a grad program with lots of academic poets--oooh is that a bad label?) and as such, I think, I tend to see things a little off from the rest of the crowd. Often my interpretations are way more stingy or generous than the majority of readers tend to "get". Does this make my interpretations wrong? I argue that if there's enough evidence to support an interpretation to you, in your own mind as it debates with others, then let yourself be satisfied. And kudos to the writer who's produced a work worthy of the investigation and interpretation.
Bad writing, however, isn't really a matter of shirked responsibility, though. Writing's a craft. Its conventions are honed over years and years by that very process of mind-word-mind communication we're celebrating here. It's a writer's responsibility to respect the craft (notice I avoid "abide by its tenants"). Because it's established by a process much larger and older than the individual, respect the craft and you'll reach many readers (in terms of understanding).
posted by
thirtysomething
on January 3, 2006 at 9:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Effective Communication is Never Easy
Too often the message one sends is misinterpreted and numerous factors interplay. Great post!
posted by
Dr_JPT
on January 3, 2006 at 7:19 AM
| link to this | reply
I think some people
try to be deliberately obtuse and others maybe appear not to understand when they really do. I can't answer for them but I can question their motives.
posted by
malcolm
on January 3, 2006 at 6:17 AM
| link to this | reply
I tend to think when everyone understands but one, it's not the fault of
the writer, but that one reader. I've written blogs where everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about and it's not even controversial, but one person tries to pick at something that wasn't even the issue, but he or she chooses to be impossible for no other reason than because they can. To me, that's beyond logic.
posted by
Ariala
on January 3, 2006 at 5:46 AM
| link to this | reply
When people don't understand me
I am fascinated by what they think they think I am saying.
I get just as much knowledge from being misunderstood as from when I am and fellas want to chat!
Jo
posted by
brisbane_artist
on January 3, 2006 at 3:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Songbirdshafer
If a reader has big emotional issues the writer cannot hope to guess their reaction to anything. I think it happens more than we know
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 3:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Silvermoon7
I am with you about wanting to write in a way so that a broad range of people can understand. To be honest this is what I enjoy least about studying again - having to wade through turgid writing. I don't wonder that some of these dull articles are never actually read. I remember at the newspaper we had some specialist columns which probably only had 20 specialist readers in the world, stuff you would never read for fun. I think it is perfectly possible to write texts that are readable. Fortunately my own teacher is an excellent academic writer - a pleasure to read.
posted by
Azur
on January 3, 2006 at 3:06 AM
| link to this | reply
As the writer has an intended audience, it is their job to make it clear.
However, you can not always predict who will read your work and if it is someone not in the demographics or someone whose ideas and thoughts are not aimed at then there may be some issue. It could also be that the reader does not necessarily understand the message of the writer and that does not mean it is the writer's fault. This, I think depends on the genre of writing. I mean textbooks are amongst the heardest thing for me as a reader to enjoy and/or understand. Likewise with humorous pieces or editorials written with a humorous slant - I just don't always follow the humour.
I liked your post, but as you said it was a simplistic overview of who is at fault and a simplistic answer from me is neither and both!
posted by
littlemspickles
on January 3, 2006 at 1:05 AM
| link to this | reply
I think it's a little of both, writer and reader. A lot of writers out there fail to write well enough to make themselves clear (whether through lack of skill, or simply not bothering to edit), but there are plenty of readers who simply won't get it, no matter what. Every reader will understand only what he or she wants to, only after bringing into the equation all of their emotional baggage and life experience. I feel the best writers are those who not only write well, but whose language and approach are most accessible to the widest audience. Even within specialized/scholarly/academic areas. For example, I wouldn't want to write an article that only my former Old English professor and his cronies would understand. I'd want to be able to reach their students and lay-scholars, and hopefully even entice the interest of a few casual readers, as well.
posted by
SilverMoon7
on January 3, 2006 at 12:39 AM
| link to this | reply
MayB,
Generally speaking, I think it's usually the writers' fault. Too many times things aren't written clearly.
That said, it is a human problem sometimes. Some people twist things and make text into something that doesn't exist. Husband John comes to mind. I forwarded an e-mail to him recently that had a moral in it about how we should care about others' problems, that we're all interconnected. Husband John read hate and gloating into it, and ranted like an idiot.
You just can't always communicate with people, especially if they have emotional issues.
Now did I just say what I think I said?
posted by
songbirdshafer
on January 3, 2006 at 12:11 AM
| link to this | reply
MayB...
Add the the usual communication misfires, the fact that here on Blogit we are a worldwide community and often different conventions of language add to the problem.
posted by
food4thought
on January 2, 2006 at 10:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Ebb.and.Flow, that is a great aim I think
I think it is OK that there are many meanings too except perhaps in a straight news report. Then you need certainty.
posted by
Azur
on January 2, 2006 at 9:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Thirty-something, yes,yes in that respect I appreciate good readers too
You say: "That can be hard work, so I can see why a writer would be grateful for a good reader—someone willing to seek out the meaningfulness of the work."
Sometimes writers when they thank the readers who understood them fail to acknowledge the readers who also made the trip but didn't entirely agree. Understanding something does not require agreement.
posted by
Azur
on January 2, 2006 at 9:53 PM
| link to this | reply
yes and yes
Just as there is such a thing as good writing, there is definitely such a thing as good reading. If, from a reasonable perspective (and this is where groups come in handy—let’s say consensus perspective here) a work achieves clarity on a superficial level and resonates with levels of meaning, then its fair to say that an individual is a good reader when they take on the responsibility to seek out those levels of meaning. (Well, you’re a teacher…Here I am preaching to the choir, right?)
That can be hard work, so I can see why a writer would be grateful for a good reader—someone willing to seek out the meaningfulness of the work. Does it make those unwilling or unable to seek out that meaning idiots? Not really. Nor does any fault fall with the writer, seems to me, if she has crafted a potentially meaningful work. And this meaningfulness is determined by the common ground between people. (There’s always inevitably some common ground—cultural? biological?)
I guess I don’t think the situations quite as subjective as this blog suggests. And that the responsibility of readers and the writers is more to that common ground between people (from where we get meaningfulness), not so much to each other as individuals.
But what they hey do I know….
posted by
thirtysomething
on January 2, 2006 at 9:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Right On, MayB! Jeez, I really would love to have you as my teacher! Your students are blessed!
~Mama.Dragonfly487
posted by
Mama.Dragonfly
on January 2, 2006 at 9:33 PM
| link to this | reply
words can, depending upon their allusiveness and ambiguity, signify different things to different people... not everyone can agree upon a single meaning for a given piece of text... the sad thing is that some people inhibit this from allowing them to even communicate about levels of meaning, preferring instead to lock in rather stubbornly and dogmatically upon their own "true" interpretation of textual significance... I encourage all who read on Blogit to do their part to break down the barriers to genuine freedom of communication, in the spirit of Blogging camaradarie
posted by
Ebb.and.Flow
on January 2, 2006 at 9:07 PM
| link to this | reply
and sometimes it's clear but humans just like to be difficult.
posted by
-blackcat
on January 2, 2006 at 9:00 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB, Wow that was weird. It made me lose my train of thought.
I don't know what happened...
posted by
ms_bradrock
on January 2, 2006 at 8:58 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB,
Blogging truly is a "human" thing, and it's
posted by
ms_bradrock
on January 2, 2006 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
your last line reminded me of my favorite sayings... i love individuals, but I hate people.
There is nothing more confusing in this world than other folks.
posted by
MerryAnne
on January 2, 2006 at 8:55 PM
| link to this | reply