Language Arts
It seems I can never stop commenting on Anna Quindlen columns. Every time I remember to read her, her thoughts and her eloquent expression of them strike something in me. This week she writes about how we communicate - or, more accurately, how we fail to communicate.
She's right, of course. We rely on email and text messages to say important things, but the medium and it's users lack something and it damages the process. So much is lost because the written words are lacking the depth of meaning, the true emotion, that is inherent in face to face communication.
It's ironic that Quindlen writes about this. She's the exception to the rule, someone with such a command of the language that there is no question about what she means. But so few of us have the skills to use the tools of the trade in that way. Some of that is because we don't read enough good writing to learn by osmosis. Some of it is the way we're made - a few with the oversized language lobe and the rest with just enough to get by. Some of it is because we're in a hurry and we don't try very hard. And some of us just don't get it, no matter how it is expressed.
I consider my own skills with language above average, but I rely too heavily on email and have found - much too often of late, and always to my chagrin - that my point is not always taken as intended. It's my preference to blame the reader, and in some instances I'm sure that's true. But mostly it's me, assuming people get what I think as I race through another note.
I'm going to try harder to remember to read Anna Quindlen regularly. No matter what she writes about, she makes her point and she makes me feel it. Maybe I'll pick up a few things and that next misunderstanding won't be.
She's right, of course. We rely on email and text messages to say important things, but the medium and it's users lack something and it damages the process. So much is lost because the written words are lacking the depth of meaning, the true emotion, that is inherent in face to face communication.
It's ironic that Quindlen writes about this. She's the exception to the rule, someone with such a command of the language that there is no question about what she means. But so few of us have the skills to use the tools of the trade in that way. Some of that is because we don't read enough good writing to learn by osmosis. Some of it is the way we're made - a few with the oversized language lobe and the rest with just enough to get by. Some of it is because we're in a hurry and we don't try very hard. And some of us just don't get it, no matter how it is expressed.
I consider my own skills with language above average, but I rely too heavily on email and have found - much too often of late, and always to my chagrin - that my point is not always taken as intended. It's my preference to blame the reader, and in some instances I'm sure that's true. But mostly it's me, assuming people get what I think as I race through another note.
I'm going to try harder to remember to read Anna Quindlen regularly. No matter what she writes about, she makes her point and she makes me feel it. Maybe I'll pick up a few things and that next misunderstanding won't be.
posted by John at 9:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home