caddyman | Context

I haven't been paying too much attention to a lot of posts recently. For one reason or another my time has been spent on other pursuits. I have taken to skim-reading posts and just going into detail on those that catch my eye. It's nothing personal, I daresay I'm doing nothing that most of you don't do from time to time.

The downside of approaching LJ in this manner is that sometimes something happens and I miss it, so another entry crops up and I have no immediate context. This can be annoying, but it is generally easily rectified by a quick bit of delving through the relevant journals.

What is interesting, though and very illuminating, is how sometimes the lack of context highlights character. When you have the context it is easy to see why someone reacts the way they do, why they say the things they say and so on. Context is the paper on which we write and from which we read and it allows us to explain behaviour, see reasons and forgive transgressions. In doing this we mask the essential nature lurking behind the persona of the writer. This person is reacting thus because of this, and has said X because Y happened.

Context is a double-edged tool with which we chisel and polish the personality of the writer and imbue it with our own perceptions. Strip out the context and we see in sharp relief highlighted aspects the essential person. No mask.

It's quite instructive. I am beginning to see some of my friends in quite a new light.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not familiar enough with Barthes to go along that line of thought - I believe the contention there is that written text can be self-referential only and is cut off from exterior meaning. I'd have to go off and re-red the essay and think it over, but it sounds like learned sophistry to me.

The beauty of Barthes' contention (as I understand it) is that since it must be in and of itself exclusively self referential, all work is contextually meaningless as soon as it is written.

Anyway, I agree with you that the written word is severely limiting; it is this that makes it such an enjoyable challenge. Equally, spoken language is just as limiting. Body language, intonation and resonance add meaning and this is lost in written language, which is why the forms and applications are different. Written language is comparatively archaic and more formal. The two forms have their strengths in different areas. A written pun may not work aurally (or orally), while spoken one may not work visually (oh really?).

The point I was trying to make is simply that when stripped back to its most basic, and with temporal references from before and after removed, a piece of writing in isolation can be quite revealing. Without the context that you may otherwise glean from prior knowledge, body language or intonation, the written word has to stand alone and the words chosen, the way they are used and the context they give themselves are driven exclusively by the personality of the writer. They are fuelled by the emotion of that writer, too, so the choice of language is dependent upon the author's mood at the time of writing. The way that mood is conveyed to paper is a product of that author's core personality.

>Without the context that you may otherwise glean from prior knowledge... ...the way that mood is conveyed to paper is a product of that author's core personality

Couldn't disagree more. ;-)

Without that context, you have no idea whether what you are getting is core personality; the adoption of a mask for literary or personal reasons; or even simply the product of getting out of bed the wrong side that morning.

To a certain extent I disagree with your disagreement =)

With writing, regardless of the substance of what is written, the style of it can give an insight into the person. Even if written with a literary mask, still the personality shines through. For me the best analogy would be that, regardless of the role played, an actor is still the actor within. To be sure, I don't believe that one can know the whole of a person simply by studying their writing (or, indeed, their acting) but I do think that one can gain ... as Bry says ... insights into their personality.

wasn't there a game some of the writers here played a while back? I vaguely remember the posting of anonymous pieces of writing and then people having to guess Who Wrote Wot.

Re the actor analogy, can we extend it to the LRP participant? Sometimes it's pretty hard to tell whether it's the character or the player who is - for instance - an arsehole! I offer the suggestion that the greater the skill and self-awareness of the player, the more difficult it is for someone who doesn't know them to tell which is which. Perhaps the same might hold true for writing on LJ. The greater the facility with language, and the self-awareness of what one is doing, the easier it is to obfuscate the nature of the author's personality.

For 'a while back' read 3 years and for 'some of the writers' read myself, Bryan, Ian and Boglin.

It was illuminating.

is interesting to see someone looking at it from that side. More common, is for people to note that there are far more clues availabel when something is said face to face, or if background material is provided by some means, resulting in far better understanding of the meaning/situation. In isolation, the words are more ambigious and could easily be mis-construed - hence arguments on blogs and forums.
The angle from which you are looking is also very revealing, as sometimes a very few words, standing alone, can be very revealing about a core aspect of a person's personality. Yes, the use of them may originate in any number of causes, but there are fundamental things about people that can be revealed in this way that are sometimes clouded by the large amount of info gleaned from actually being with someone or having that background material. It's akin to losing someone's personal scent in all their deodrant and perfumes. Of course, you can get both, you can obain core facts and nuance/cause face to face, but I agree that just sometimes you get a simple clang of personality from an isolated phrase or two.

I wonder if what I said made any sense at all then?

And another thing. As someone who has oft been accused of deconstructionalism, I do agree that the author/painter etc is irrelevant in some ways to the way in which I wish to experience a work. That I can, in some ways, only see it via my own filters, making it unique to me. This is why I prefer to know nothing about the source, so I can really see how I respond to the work.
However, and I stress this, I think this is a choice. If I wish, I can involve the source and this will affect my response in yet another way, again via me. I can have a pure self-indulgent experience, or with my Sherlock head on, I can explore and delve and find out something about that person who created it.
Choosing not to include the source isn't possible of course entirely, as the simplest thing may give you a strong message about them. But that in itself is interesting. And here we come to the point about writing: people aren't that complex or madly variable really, and the simplest thing can reveal much about them. So just a line, out of context, or a dab of paint just there, can by-pass all filters and tell you much.
I still prefer not to know though.

Context

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate

Re: A poor way to communicate