I don't believe in lost causes. Try as I may, I always believe in putting a little more into a cause, in the hope that some day, it'll reinvent itself. Comatose patients, terminal illness, trying to teach an old dog new tricks: none of these do I consider losing battles until I've given it a very decent try. Much like trying to teach an old dog new tricks, is trying to get Gautham to keep writing.
The scientific community has long since recognised the vast differences between speaking and writing aptitudes. The linguistic community has done several studies on the same. The key difference is in the mental processes. Speech comes to us naturally through our system of human interaction, and obviously, is fundamental to our survival. Writing however, is not a matter of simply putting speech on paper. Unlike speech, writing requires systematic instruction (or continued self-critiquing), and certainly, practice.
This explanation I found somewhere left me wanting more. It did not explain why there was this difference. What I have long felt was the underlying reason for this difference, is the problematic idea of time. Human beings are aware of the shortcomings of communication, and as a result attempt to achieve a level of clarity relative to its requirement. In verbal communication, clarity is often sacrificed for word economy, simply because if faced with confusion, the speaker can instantly close the gap in understanding by rephrasing his/her idea. However, with the written word, the importance of precision and clarity become magnified manyfold, since the interaction is not instantaneous, and misunderstanding may not necessarily be detected.
I feel that the way letters are written make for a great example to support my idea. In the time when communiqués were sent through messengers on horseback, they were long, well-worded and complete, offering at times, a much larger picture than was needed, just to make sure it wasn't left wanting. As the postal system developed, letters for various purposes followed different formats, to make the writer's intent clear to the recipient. And now, as we've moved to an age of e-mails, this need has largely diminished, as information transfer became instantaneous, and questions could be clarified within minutes. An even lower attention to structure and content exists in the world of IMs, SMS and Whatsapp, which pretty much simply mimics face-to-face conversation.
The need to train one's written competence however, is not negated by the establishment of electronic means of communication, albeit of diminished importance compared to the Middle Ages. The fact that still so much in the world, be it newspapers or journals happen to be in print, and still so many more items of communication happen to electronic, yet of a non-interactive form, preserves the need for written competence in the world today. And this like anything else, takes practice.
The scientific community has long since recognised the vast differences between speaking and writing aptitudes. The linguistic community has done several studies on the same. The key difference is in the mental processes. Speech comes to us naturally through our system of human interaction, and obviously, is fundamental to our survival. Writing however, is not a matter of simply putting speech on paper. Unlike speech, writing requires systematic instruction (or continued self-critiquing), and certainly, practice.
This explanation I found somewhere left me wanting more. It did not explain why there was this difference. What I have long felt was the underlying reason for this difference, is the problematic idea of time. Human beings are aware of the shortcomings of communication, and as a result attempt to achieve a level of clarity relative to its requirement. In verbal communication, clarity is often sacrificed for word economy, simply because if faced with confusion, the speaker can instantly close the gap in understanding by rephrasing his/her idea. However, with the written word, the importance of precision and clarity become magnified manyfold, since the interaction is not instantaneous, and misunderstanding may not necessarily be detected.
I feel that the way letters are written make for a great example to support my idea. In the time when communiqués were sent through messengers on horseback, they were long, well-worded and complete, offering at times, a much larger picture than was needed, just to make sure it wasn't left wanting. As the postal system developed, letters for various purposes followed different formats, to make the writer's intent clear to the recipient. And now, as we've moved to an age of e-mails, this need has largely diminished, as information transfer became instantaneous, and questions could be clarified within minutes. An even lower attention to structure and content exists in the world of IMs, SMS and Whatsapp, which pretty much simply mimics face-to-face conversation.
The need to train one's written competence however, is not negated by the establishment of electronic means of communication, albeit of diminished importance compared to the Middle Ages. The fact that still so much in the world, be it newspapers or journals happen to be in print, and still so many more items of communication happen to electronic, yet of a non-interactive form, preserves the need for written competence in the world today. And this like anything else, takes practice.
