Ah. Value added verbiage.
Then there's the idea that expression is only one end of communication. Hearing, understanding, comprehending the other.
Anyway: the difference between "reader" and "consumer." We were talking at one point about the economics of writing, the need to be paid or somehow aquire the means to put steak on the table, or even just food stuff, in order to provide things to be read. That may not be the main purpose to write or read, but making readers paying consumers of books has been a model that limped along for a few decades, and seems to be in danger now. Have you another?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:38 AM
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: state of NY publishing
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gsp.schoo@..." <gsp.schoo@...> wrote:
<<ou don't feel a
need to communicate? Then why have you responded to my points, or any others on
RARA for that matter? If you don't communicate, then how DO you express
By talking. What we're doing is talking. Communication is something else. Just like I'm a reader, not a consumer, and just like I eat a steak, not "food stuff". The difference is important to me. Communication is a very broad concept, and we need complex concepts in daily life like we need a hole in the head. If I say that you and I are communicating, I am being pompous, I am plugging both of us into a "channel", with a "code", and so on. But in reality, that is hot air: we are just talking.
As to expressing, it is not the same as communicating. Language is used primarily to express, secondarily to "communicate". The amount of "information" to be communicated by a Faulkner story could be very minimal -- but the expression is not minimal, it's Faulkner talking.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Nov 2009 EST