A couple of readers were kind enough to ask me to elaborate on a point I made in My Last, Best 10 Tips On How To Make It As A Writer, about how talking and writing are “exact opposite uses of the language.” So here’s my case for why writing is no more like talking than mime is like opera:
Spoken language is very much about maintaining societal mores; it’s about not offending people. Speaking to others is (duh) how we get along with them, so it’s deeply grounded in ancient, at-this-point-instinctive ambiguity. The core, formative idea when you’re talking to people—especially in any kind of group setting—is to keep things friendly, to accommodate the thoughts and feelings of the others in your group, to be … well, social. Talking is about cooperative give-and-take, sharing, keeping things open-ended in such a way that no one involved in the conversation feels too threatened or challenged.
Talking is about mostly about equivocation, inconclusiveness, changeableness; it’s about an ongoing, manifest, subtly communicated sense of demurral. Talking is grounded in serving and supporting the idea that everyone’s point of view and experience is as valid as everyone else’s. That’s what “being social” means—and talking, of course, is our primary socializing tool.
Talking is about keeping things subjective. It’s about relativism.
Writing is the exact opposite of that. Writing is about keeping things objective. It’s about absolutism. It’s about keeping everything absolutely unambiguous. It’s about explicitness, certitude, precision, clarity, transparency. Writing is about very purposeful precision, utter decipherability.
The kind of maniacal, measured exactitude that defines good writing doesn’t go with socializing. It goes with no one ever inviting you anywhere because you always come off like such a conversational Nazi.
Anyway, that’s why thinking that being a good talker makes you a good writer is like thinking that being a good swimmer makes you a good cruise ship pilot. They’re completely different — and even opposing — uses of the same Basic Medium.
If you like my work, subscribe to my rss feed and/or join my Facebook group!
Posted by Sabina on January 22, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I’m in agreement with you. At work right now there’s this email dialog conflict. Some coworkers, who are usually very clear when speaking to in person are horribly off when sending email communications and offended so many people that I’ve had 5 meetings to clarify what this person tried to clarify in the email-talking about counter productive!
Posted by Kazakhnomad on January 23, 2008 at 2:43 am
As an ESL/EFL writing teacher I have noted over and over again that my best students who write well are avid readers. Without exception. So, I would add good talkers who happen to be good readers can be good writers but it is unusual to find that mix.
Thanks for making this clear about talking and writing. Pity those who come from an “oral tradition” where story telling is the sign of a complete or whole person and writing is woefully neglected. In Kazakhstan, I’m learning how to coax my students to WRITE and not talk in class!!!
Posted by ric booth on January 23, 2008 at 5:08 am
Is all talking created equally? That is, here I am conversationally talking with my eyes and keyboard with you and your readers. One-on-one would be different. Face-to-face differenter… To a small group different again… To a large group… Storytelling… Speaches… Singing… Preaching… Teaching. Would all of these fall under this assessment of talking? For example, wouldn’t a preacher argue that his/her spoken words were objective and absolute? (not all the time of course but during the act of preaching.)
Posted by John Shore on January 23, 2008 at 5:29 am
Sabina: Yeah, e-mail is where the difference between talking and writing can become especially apparent. Thanks for bringing that up. And good luck there at work!
Kaz: I/we are so interested in the work you do. Where in Russia are you?
Ric: No, you’re right, of course: All talking’s not created equal. But the PRIMARY purpose of talking–the “core, formative idea” behind it, is to socialize. That’s its … genesis. That’s what it is first, and most often. It’s the clay from which all other kinds of talking are then formed.
Posted by Kazakhnomad on January 23, 2008 at 6:32 am
Actually, Almaty, where I am currently located, is in Kazakhstan the HUGE country just south of Russia. (If you think Borat, he got it way wrong about this proud land, as did the Soviets.)
My husband and I met in Almaty 14 years ago but have mostly been teaching in Kyiv, Ukraine. We have been “called” back here to Central Asia where the soil is hard while souls are perishing. We miss Ukraine where the soil is much more fertile.
In any case, students are the same everywhere in the former Soviet Union. After inheriting a broken down system of governance, there’s much dysfunction in families, yet they are proud of their heritage which I get them to write about. From a writing teacher’s point of view, however, plagiarism is rife. Where to begin when talking about writing with these students???
Posted by K. A. Young on January 23, 2008 at 7:19 am
Your definition of talking and its purpose has been a real eye-opener for me this morning (literally and figuratively). After thinking on this some, I’ve concluded my problem isn’t just unedited talking; it’s that I need a whole paradigm shift on the purpose of oral conversation. I’ve been talking when I should’ve been writing and winding up as your “conversational Nazi”–ouch! Summary for me: 1) Talk less. Write more. 2) When talking, be social. When writing, be grateful for the chance to edit/revise.
Thanks again, JS. (The comments are really good, too, by the way.)
–Kathleen
Posted by Debora Silkotch on January 23, 2008 at 7:54 am
Yarg.
Kathleen, in the long run it’s extremely counterproductive to adopt a conversational style that requires you to”edit/revise” your statements when you later write them . If your natural speaking style usually comes off as abrasive or confrontational you’ll probably want to work on presenting your opinions in a more courteous fashion, but you *really* don’t want to get into the habit of just going along with the opinions of whomever you happen to be speaking to at the time. You will eventually lose all credibility and people will stop placing value on anything you say, because they know you’re just “being social” and your actual opinions may be completely different.
Intelligent, mature people value honesty. Don’t compromise your integrity just to fit in with the group you happen to be with at any given moment!
Posted by John Shore on January 23, 2008 at 8:07 am
Kaz: Want me to post a blog speaking to them directly about … I don’t know … the power of their individual voices, or something like that? Then you could read/show it to them, and … see if starts any kind of helpful dialogue? I’d be happy/honored to do that, if you think it would help you at all.
K.A. I like what you’ve said here very much. Nice.
Posted by Trace on January 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
Yes, K.A. I like it, too.
As I was reading John’s article, I was thinking “Oh My! I already AM a conversational Nazi!” Maybe there is hope for me yet, in writing and in conversation.
Posted by Kath on January 23, 2008 at 9:04 am
Hmmm… I’m writing here so I guess it’s ok to strongly disagree. Last night I was reading Beuchner’s Alphabet of Grace and I was thinking about how subtly and beautifully he led the reader along. And I know people who are, in person, just about as domineering and combative as possible.
In general, writing is a solo act, whereas talk is interactive. But I think the best writing feels interactive — it invites the reader in on things. And the best talk is not so mamby-pamby as to be uninteresting.
Sorry, John, but I don’t see the clear division that you see. If there’s something you’re getting at that I seem to be missing, please let me know.
Posted by Janiece on January 23, 2008 at 9:17 am
So many times in written communication your words get misconstrued because the reader can’t see your body language. I’ve been on a few email lists where verbal battles ensued. If they had been talking face to face there would have been no misunderstanding.
I think when writing, like in a book, you have to be very clear in what you say unless you are writing a fictional piece and want your readers to picture in their own minds what a character or location looks like.
I’m in a place right now where I would like to take the hundreds of pages I’ve written out long hand and put them into my computer so I can edit them.
Does anyone know of a good software program that I can use to do that? I’ve done some searching and found a few, but I have no idea which one is best.
Blessings,
Janiece
Posted by John Shore on January 23, 2008 at 9:20 am
All I’m saying is that the reason you felt as you did reading Beuchner is because Beuchner used everything in his powers to make you feel EXACTLY that way. Through his command and art, he guided you to feel precisely as you did. As you say, it FELT interactive to you, but that’s the masterful craft of his illusion. There’s nothing wrong with what he did, of course. But in doing so–in consciously and purposefully doing everything he could to make what he did FEEL interactive to you–Beuchner excercised an entirely different set of processes than he would have had he been speaking to you directly. That’s … all I’m saying. Two different things. Not in the receiving of it, but in the delivery of it.
Posted by Penlee on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
Am thoroughly enjoying all this your timing is right for me God Bless
PS I missed Writing No.2 please help.
Posted by samwrites2 on January 23, 2008 at 11:51 am
You know John I wanted to talk with you about this post but I guess I’ll just have to write you.
-Sam
Posted by John Shore on January 23, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Penlee: I’m sorry; I don’t know what you mean by “I missed Writing No. 2.”
Sam: Always with the joke with you!
Posted by K. A. Young on January 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I’d just like to add that I agree with Kath’s second paragraph and also with Debora’s advice not to be disingenuous. What I got out of John’s explanation is that I need to realize most people aren’t conversing with me to be an “audience” for my ideas and opinions; whereas, if they read what I’ve written, they are, in effect, inviting my ideas and opinions. When people I’m conversing with do show interest in “giving me the floor,” I can certainly take the opportunity but not take advantage. (A good thing to remember while writing, too.) Perhaps being gracious in conversation can encourage a writer to make that effort John was talking about to achieve that “interaction” Kath mentioned. It’s just that I can reread what I’ve written and edit it if my thoughts are unclear or the tone is all wrong; that’s what I meant by wishing I could edit my conversations. I want to apply one item (#3, wasn’t it?) from John’s list of 10 tips for writers to my speaking as well as to my writing: THINK FIRST!
TY, JS
–kathleen
Posted by dsrtrosy on January 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
So THAT’S what I’m doing wrong. I don’t equivocate. My speech, while ostensibly social, is not particular demure. And while I do prefer writing for the ability to say PRECISELY what I mean, I also have the (clearly) bad habit when speaking of saying EXACTLY what I mean.
No wonder people tend to misunderstand me. I am constantly having to explain to men that it is not necessary to “interpret” me. As a friend pointed out a few years ago, I am WYSIWIG. Few women are…and I think, if you are right about this (which I suspect you are) that few men are either.
I don’t know that this will cause any changes in my own personal speech, but perhaps it will make me a bit more patient with the rest of the world.
Posted by John Shore on January 23, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Well. That’s all we can ask for.
Posted by Kazakhnomad on January 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Kaz: Want me to post a blog speaking to them directly about … I don’t know … the power of their individual voices, or something like that? Then you could read/show it to them, and … see if starts any kind of helpful dialogue? I’d be happy/honored to do that, if you think it would help you at all.
John, it would be GREAT to get your thoughts on the “power of individual voice” for my Kazakh students. Last semester I had my students in Kyiv, Ukraine use this wordpress.com blog because we had no other platforms which I used for discussion like WebCT, Blackboard or Desire to Learn (D2L) while teaching in American universities. Instead of being frightened off by the blank sheet of paper, some of my students felt inhibited to write on a blog for the rest of the world to see and thus the did not interact with each other as I had hoped. We muddled through but I would hope to do the same with my Kazakh students eventually. My assignments would entail informal writing (blogs) vs. formal academic writing (APA or MLA research papers).
Yes, whatever you think would be helpful for those students who think they can’t write in English or for those others who are used to “cut and paste” mentality (thanks to the former Soviet educational system), I would be most grateful. Sorry so long.
Posted by John Shore on January 24, 2008 at 5:44 am
Sounds great. I’ll do it. So tell me, what is the name of the school your students attend. I want to title it, like, “Attention, Students of [NAME?] School in Almaty, Kazakhstan!” That’s right, right? Almaty, Kazakhstan?
How fun!
Posted by Kazakhnomad on January 24, 2008 at 7:39 am
The name of the institution is: Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research. Yes, it is in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Thanks for whatever you write up, I’m looking forward to reading it and eventually deciminating to my Kazakhstani students.
Posted by John Shore on January 24, 2008 at 9:20 am
Too perfect. I’m on it.
Posted by Kath on January 24, 2008 at 9:50 am
Hey John,
Your response in reaching out to these Kazah students is pretty great — and, wow, the power of the Internet for doing good in the world!!
-Kath
Posted by Wahid on April 14, 2008 at 3:08 am
Hey Kaz
I am interested in field work in Kazakhstan. I am a doctoral student studying epic and community development. I am right now in Kabul, Afghanistan and I would like to travel to Almaty in June for one week at the most. Any tips would be very much appreciated.
Posted by Conversationally Controlling « Significana on March 11, 2009 at 9:50 am
[...] Back in January, John Shore wrote about the difference between talking and writing. I had to agree. It also got me thinking about how this relates to my ex-wife’s [...]