Cheerskep wants to agree with me but can't because he's still insisting that the creation of meaning is a one way process instead of two way, organic and creative. The writer can't create word meaning alone. The word has no meaning until the communication occurs and communication requires active participation of both writer and reader. In writing one can adopt the role of the reader too and through this surrogate other, one creates the composite, contextual meaning. Another reader comes along and vicariously joins that conversation by creating meanings for both the writer and the surrogate reader. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 1:27:36 PM Subject: "Rules" William writes: "Where [Cheerskep and I] differ is the division of responsibilities between speaker and hearer or writer and reader. I think the responsibility is more or less equal and Cheerskep seems to assume that it's primarily one-sided, that of the speaker or writer. This presumes that the passive one, the hearer or reader, has a full storehouse of word meanings on display as it were and is simply pulling up whichever ones are very clearly asked for." No, William - just the opposite. The trouble with ambiguous words is that no single "meaning" is very clearly asked for. So all sorts of possibilities tumble into mind. And yes, I do feel it's the non-fiction writer's responsibility to do what he can to channel and restrict the processing by the reader's mind, with the aim of heightening the chances that the writer's intended notion is the one that comes - albeit roughly -- to the reader's mind. To do this the writer must, among other things, work to prevent unwanted alternative "meanings" from gaining entrance. (I have to reject your implication I feel it's wrong if the reader can't be a passive bloke who sits back and has knowledge, understanding, etc poured into his brain with no effort on his part. I had to bend long and hard over some textbooks in college, and not always because the writers were inadequate. Some ideas in physics, math, chemistry and philosophy are intrinsically difficult. No matter how well written they are, they take effort, time, and concentration while the receiving apparatus in my head processes the ideas. In other words a good writer may do all he can, but the material is so difficult that learning it can never be simple.) William also writes: "When Cheerskep says he has no idea what a writer has in mind when using a particular word, I say he most certainly does have something in mind, that he too creates a meaning in tandem with the writer although there's no guarantee that they both have the same meanings in mind." I did not say that no idea whatever comes to my mind. In fact, the trouble with ambiguous words is that too many interpretations come to mind. What I said was that I have no surety about what the WRITER has in mind.
