In
"Introduction" and "Coming to Terms", Joseph Harris
discusses the art of carefully spitting back what you have understood from
others' writing. He makes a great point that what we perceive and understand
has a basis somewhere, so our thoughts are a collection of other people's
thoughts, although we may comprehend them from a new angle. His book is titled
"Rewriting", because he believes any new written work is a form of
old works processed in a new way. At first I was skeptical of this approach,
because people can have genuinely new thoughts having never heard a similar one
(though they may still have been inspired elsewhere), but then Harris made a
point that really struck a chord with me. He explains that in order to first
understand someone’s purpose in writing, we must paraphrase his or her work in
our heads. This paraphrasing is ultimately what would come out of our own
writing, should we choose to publicize it.
We do need to be
careful, though, because (as was discussed in my Intro to Psych course last
quarter) often we only see the results we intend to see, not noticing things that
counter the point we seek to confirm. According to Harris, “On the one hand… you need to be able to restate what she or he has to say in your own terms, to offer your own paraphrase of her or his project. On the other hand, you also need to attend closely to the specific features of the texts you deal with… or you run the risk of turning every text you read into a version of what you already want to say.”
In order to avoid this, it is imperative that we pay close attention to an author’s phrasing and purpose. The fine “attention to intention”, shall we say, is the most uniting characteristic I found while reading Harris and Sullivan. Although they have different styles of writing, as well as different intentions (Harris focuses on speaking to new writers, whereas Sullivan explains his own writing decisions), they both focus on making sure an author’s point is not obscured. In fact, this is one of the main reasons Sullivan resorts to blogging now, because by skipping the editorial process, his views come across precisely as he intends them to. This was not the conclusion I expected to find when delving into Harris, but is definitely an important factor to both writers.
In order to avoid this, it is imperative that we pay close attention to an author’s phrasing and purpose. The fine “attention to intention”, shall we say, is the most uniting characteristic I found while reading Harris and Sullivan. Although they have different styles of writing, as well as different intentions (Harris focuses on speaking to new writers, whereas Sullivan explains his own writing decisions), they both focus on making sure an author’s point is not obscured. In fact, this is one of the main reasons Sullivan resorts to blogging now, because by skipping the editorial process, his views come across precisely as he intends them to. This was not the conclusion I expected to find when delving into Harris, but is definitely an important factor to both writers.
Brooke, as a Psych Major I'm very pleased to see you address the concept that we skew what we read to fit our own preconceptions. That's a large challenge in reading another's work, especially when their opinion differ from your own. In that case, we tend to ignore the purpose, as one ignores a individual they no longer wish to speak with.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this discussion of reading to fit our own preconceptions. Two ways to lessen the liability is to try to acknowledge those preconceptions and to quote and reference the text as a grounding for your reading. Good discussion here.
ReplyDeleteI like how you connected this to psychology, and I have definitely come to see how writing spans across nearly all subjects. Harris seemed to allude (and you did too) to the fact that modern-day writing isn't incredibly original, something discussed at length in my Creative Writing class last quarter. The world of writing has expanded to the point that original ideas are very hard to come by.
ReplyDelete