I would like to put in a word for written language. I think it is really easy, when studying something, to do so at the expense of everything that is different. Writing is different, but that is not necessarily bad. In class we discussed briefly about people being more likely to forget things if they write them down. I didn't get to comment, but I would like to say now that this is completely not the case for me. I often take notes in class. I rarely read them. The reason I do this is because that I have learned through trial and error that I remember things significantly better if I have gone through the act of writing them down, even if I never read my written notes again. Kody noted in his post that his is able to picture a scene much better when he hears it out loud than if he reads it silently. It is an good observation, and I'm sure that is true for him and probably for many of you, but it is not for me. I dislike listening to stories specifically because I have a harder time making the picture. The words feel weak and impermanent and I have to concentrate in order to make them vivid.
To understand this point of view, you probably should know a few things about me. I could write my name by age two. I could read by age five, and I was reading novels (charlotte's web type) by the time I was six. A child who learns a second language at this age can become good enough to be considered a native speaker. This is how I see myself: natively bilingual in both the language of written English and the language of spoken English. I never stopped reading. One summer when I was a young teenager, my mom banned me from reading because I was reading a 300 page novel every single day. I still managed to read the entire Harry Potter series (in secret) during the last month of summer.
The thing about reading in high school and college is that so often what we are reading is textbooks. It is true, about 99% of textbooks do not portray any emotion at all (the exception is my AP Psychology book, which was phenomenal. I would read it for fun). They aren't tring to portray emotion, that is not what they are for. They are for information and that is it. It is, however, unfair to compare these, or even today's mediocre novels, to the greatest of the oral epics that survived for millenia. Think of the best book you have ever read. Think of the Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, the Les Miserables, the To Kill a Mockingbird, whichever book it was for you that left you checking to see how many pages were left because you didn't want the book to be over. Think of the book that made you want to read just one more chapter before you go to bed, then just one more chapter, the book that made you cry your eyes out at the end, even on your third or fourth reading. Think about the article online that was so funny that you just had to show your friend. Then tell me that writing cannot adequately portray emotion. Yes, oral performances can do this too, but better than written? Not to me.
The thing about writing is that it leaves so much up to your own mind. You supply the voice, you supply the exact inflection of that wonderful line that makes you laugh out loud. That part that made you cry? The author's words guided it, but that emotion came from you and only you. When I listen to a story, I am constrained by both the words and the way they are spoken. When I read one, I am only constrained by the words, and the added freedom of imagination makes the story more alive, more vivid, more mine.
I understand that not everyone has had this experience. I have met many, many non-readers, and as much as I want to preach my passion to the multitudes, I have to agree that they are perfectly free to like and dislike whatever they please. People are different, and that is okay. I just wanted to portray my experience, because it is my experience, and I believe that it is important.
No comments:
Post a Comment