‘Pon My Word

I’ve had a sharp reminder this week about the relationship between writers and readers. It’s not a new lesson, I’ve been forced to reappraise my writing skills before when people took their own meaning from my words and turned them against me during discussions on Internet fora.

It is beholden on the writer to craft words with skill so that the subsequent meaning is unambiguous. Here, simple words rather than obscure ones are best used. Short sentences with clear structure in favour of long, rambling ones give clarity to the meaning. Of course, this doesn’t mean that one should write from within a straightjacket; merely that possible misunderstanding should be considered before hitting the “send” button. This, I do. I proof read vigorously, recrafting if I see a potential for misunderstanding.

The other thing to bear in mind is that we all, without exception, have a written voice. Mine is generally light, with an underlying facetiousness, that remains even when I’m making a serious point. Indeed, my humour was once described by a colleague as arid. This amused me because the comment was so accurate. I can also turn that humour on myself and frequently do – it’s subtle but it’s there. Unfortunately, this undertow of gentle humour is frequently misinterpreted. I recall once writing a piece for BikeNet. It was one of my regular articles and on this occasion I was covering the NEC Motorcycle Show that year. The piece was a gentle mickey take of the whole thing and included a smattering of self-deprecating humour. It’s the way I write; I almost can’t help myself. I subsequently received an email from a less than amused reader that was best described as hate mail. I’m not sure why he bothered to send it, nor why he thought that it would do any good. Did it change anything? Nope.

Perhaps, though, the biggest problem with writing is that some readers will seize upon a phrase that strikes a chord. Without bothering to consider the context of the whole they will engage in an ad hominem, using the straw man fallacy. Having seen a statement that incurs their ire, they put up a series of assumptions that are not present in the written piece and, having built their straw man, attack that – claiming to attack the concept of the original article, yet in so doing, they have managed to say more about themselves than the subject of their vitriol.

It took me a while to realise what was happening the first time I experienced it. Couldn’t this person understand what I was saying? It was, after all, clear enough – even rereading it with my critic’s thoughts in mind – but, no, it still said what I wanted it to say, not what had been presumed. I recall being bemused and annoyed that a series of assumptions about my beliefs had been drawn from a statement taken out of context that was subsequently combined with the reader’s vivid imagination. And, despite clear statements in the text to the contrary, did not reflect my beliefs. More recently, my statement about privatisation in the UK utilities was taken to mean a host of imagined beliefs; yet, in reality, the statement itself referred to exactly what it said – and no more could, or should, be drawn from it. Indeed, there was a qualification at the end of the same sentence that put it into context.

Here’s an exercise for you; try this the next time you watch an interview on a current affairs programme. When a person makes a statement, just observe how often this is followed up with “So you are saying…”

No. That is not what was said – if that was what they said, they would have said it. Listen to, or read what is actually stated, not what your prejudices would like them to have said. Draw no conclusions beyond the facts in the statement, no less, no more.

I try to follow these rules myself wherever possible. And, if I do wander into speculation, I try to make it clear that this is what I am doing.

If the writer has a responsibility to ensure unambiguous clarity, then so, too, does the reader have a responsibility to read what is written without prejudice. Oh, wouldn’t that be nice? :devil:

But, then, no matter how carefully crafted the words, the writer has no control over the potential for foolishness in some of those who choose to read… :dry: