I was really intrigued by the idea brought up on page 113 of Eagleton’s essay, which discussed the concept that writing allows meanings to escape from the author’s control by being “at one remove from [his] consciousness”. Eagleton then goes on to argue that the same could be said of speech, because once it is released, speech, like writing, can be distorted and taken to mean things that were not the intention of the speaker. I was wondering what everyone makes of this, and whether it means that speaking and writing can never be satisfactory forms of communication in that one is never fully able to express what he or she actually means.
Writing vs. Speaking
1 October 2008 · 10.14 am · by bbug8
Categories: blogging
1 response so far ↓
2southgreen // 5 October 2008 at 9.35 pm
I really like this concept as well. I think that ultimately there is no completely satisfactory method of communication. If there were some method by which someone could entirely be known by another, that’s what people would use. However, this striving towards an impossible goal (mutual understanding) is the driving force behind art and literature. Simple writing, speaking, touching, etc. does not suffice to convey ourselves accurately and entirely to others. So we write metaphors, paint pictures, etc., etc., all in an attempt to achieve perfect communication. The beautiful by-products (eg, the artwork, literature, etc.) are the only silver lining to this tragic state. However, even in the most intimate relationship, the highest form of literature, the most eloquent and carefully-worded speech, our intents are released and distorted, leaving man alone and never entirely understood.
But we keep trying.
You must log in to post a comment.