What would you say is the difference between reading and writing? I mean intellectually/philosophically speaking, in terms of processing information, or creativity, or interaction with words, ideas, language...
Printable View
What would you say is the difference between reading and writing? I mean intellectually/philosophically speaking, in terms of processing information, or creativity, or interaction with words, ideas, language...
As far as "interaction with words, ideas, language" goes, there isn't much difference between reading and writing. In terms of "processing information, or creativity" reading is almost a mirror image of writing. Writing is putting ideas into a form that can be understood by others, while reading is taking such expressions of thoughts and absorbing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneC
I think you cannot write if you do not read.
*having a flashback to final term rhetoric course*
Yikes. I think I'd better not get started...
But isn't a reader doing more than absorbing, but also interpreting and drawing conclusions, making meaning? Like sometimes when I read I underline and take notes and form questions--that's all part of the act of reading. Reading is an interaction, in a way, with the writer and the ideas. So then what is writing? I was thinking it wasn't an interaction, but then what Snukes said makes sense: you can't write if you don't read. So then is writing a kind of delayed interaction with whatever you have read before?
Writing is interaction with the world at large or with other literature.
I'm not sure about the difference, but I like to do both at once.
Writing requires a greater command of the language. Children first start to read and then develop the ability to write (they have great problem spelling the words they can easily read). And many adults would find it difficult if you give them pen and paper and ask them to express themselves in a written format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
That's a good point; it's easier to write when you have something to react to. So in writing, then, you are reprocessing what you have read and seen in the world, filtering it through your own mind and experiences. Thanks!
Been thinking about this... and it is also important, I think, that there are many rules governing 'written world';grammar, spelling, punctuation and techniques to be used depending on the type of writing you are doing... which all makes it harder to master writing. Reading, on the other hand, requires merely recognition of what one sees; of course, to understand what is read, one needs to have deveoped an understanding of above rules but it is easier to recognise than putting those into application.
I have questioned this over and over again in my head, and concluded to agreeing with you, Snukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snukes
Arthur Schopenhauer wrote extensively on this subject, and ended up insulting a number of his readers by remarking that reading creates much time of having your writer think for you, while the reader's mind has a greater chance of remaining stagnant. This, I think, really depends on the reader, and the material read; but I would like to think that reading and writing go hand in hand, and many brilliant writers have gained much influence from inspiring literature.
I was trying to decide if you could claim that truth for all of history, and I think you can. The question is whether someone had to be the FIRST to write something (in which case, they obviously could not do much reading prior to doing the writing...) But it's pretty well established that all cultures enjoyed a point in history where they had an oral tradition. The first writings (aside from keeping track of how many sheep Bog Bottom owns - which doesn't count ;)) were usually records of stories or histories which had been developed orally. In this case, I would claim that that "author" is not so much *writing* as simply recording. He did not do the creative work himself. Thereafter, people can continue to record oral traditions, or they can start to read what has already been written, and attempt to create something new...
I had a teacher once who claimed only one original story ever existed: the creation and the fall in Genesis. Every other story ever written or told, he claimed, was simply an ellaboration on this theme. The truth of this claim is up for grabs, of course, but it is an interesting thought...
Your teacher was mistaken. The stories in Genisis were copied from the Enuma ELiah, the Gilgamesh epic. The oldest known written version of the Enuma Elish dates to 2100+/- BCE. All of the themes, basic plots, etc. of subsequent literature are fiound in the Enuma Elish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snukes
To start writing seriously, one must have read a lot !
The point about the Genesis story was really not whether it was the first record of that particular story. ;) As you yourself point out, PeterL, even what may have preceded it in written version was the same story. THAT is the point. And that every story since has done exactly the same thing - copied that story, although sometimes it is better disguised than others.
I agree very strongly. Humans have a limited number of concerns that they express and have expressed as far back as there is any evidence, and probably for a few hundred thousand years before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snukes