Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-15 11:54 AM: > What is the goal of a writer? It could be to communicate, but it could > also be to entertain or to manipulate.
Can you really distinguish between communication, entertainment, and manipulation? I sometimes _think_ I can; but when I catch myself thinking that, I'm usually wrong. Perhaps you're better at it than I am; but I've often found that good entertainment is the best form of communication and the best form of manipulation. Likewise, the best manipulation is entertaining (e.g. magic tricks) and I think a good case can be made that the best form of communication is entertaining. So, again, I have to object to the false and idealistic distinction you're making. > If a reader thinks they are > modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely > they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for > them. Yes! A good writer does exactly that, competently lays down a path for the reader to follow. And the arrogance (which I define as: "an unjustified belief in one's own abilities") on the part of the reader is not only inherent in the way humans navigate the world, but an integral part of the plan of a good writer. Arrogance is often criticized as somehow bad; but it's not. If we weren't arrogant enough to think we can do things like... survive car crashes when so many others don't, start a business when most others fail, effectively capture sociological processes in a computational model when so many others try and fail, etc, then we would never do anything. That arrogance is a fundamental driver for innovation. So, I say BE arrogant. Believe in yourself. Take unjustified pride in your (imagined and real) abilities. Go ahead and try to model the writer in her entirety if you dare. And hunt down the new data that will ultimately, inevitably show that your model is wrong. > In e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer > signals as to an individual's behaviors and constraints. With these > limited signals, it is more difficult for a reader to model the writer's > mind and the writer's social extent. To say that the reader has a > responsibility to form a model of the writer from an impoverished set of > signals (and others which may be in large part synthesis and > manipulation) means to invest in a bad model rather than getting better > information about the writer out-of-band. Naaa. I don't think it means that. I think it means to invest in the best model you have until you can construct a better one. Granted, if you ever catch yourself believing you've captured all there is in your silly little model, then you have to kick yourself and snap out of it. But don't be afraid to _start_ a model just because you don't have as much data as you want. > The writer that tries to > encourage such modeling from their writing alone is probably up to no > good. The models would be mostly cultural norms and the reader's > projections and, of course, the imaginary person the writer is trying to > put forth. All comm. is mostly cultural norms and the participants' projections. (This is why good science is based on scripted behavior, not words and concepts.) The symbols being pushed around are grounded, but only loosely. So, while I agree with you on that point, I disagree that a writer trying to encourage such modeling is probably up to no good. Good intentions may abound with no impact on the goodness of the actual outcome. Besides, if our impoverished models of writers are so bad, how could we come to the conclusion that a writer encouraging the reader to model her is probably up to no good? ;-) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
