A Clear Pattern
It is completely obvious to me that I only seek out this journal when I am really struggling to bring the meaning out in my writing. I love writing, I have a lovely and frustrating relationship with the process of writing that, at times, leaves me wondering if my computer will fit through the window as I defenestrate it.
Looking back at the time when I was studying Hermeneutics, or rather trying to avoid it, the focus was on meaning. What does a particular text mean, what did it mean to the people to which it was intended originally, and what social/economic/cultural factors then and now affect our reading of the text? I suppose that it made me more conscious and careful about what I commit to the page. In all honesty I am not especially bothered by how this blog comes across as I seem to be the only one that reads it. I am not sure that there are many people out there that would be particularly interested in reading the addled ramblings of a lifelong procrastinator. However, when it comes to my job I am extremely concerned about meaning.
For example, writing for a particular age group, especially children, complicates how meaning is expressed. Writing about the role of mothers when women are still routinely consigned to the role of mother above any other (I am not saying that motherhood is in any way inferior or wrong, but that it is still used in a patriarchal way), when the concept of family is much more fluid and when people have had negative experiences of motherhood (and indeed fatherhood) is difficult. Add in the fact that it has to be appropriate for the ages of 5 to 85 and that adds another layer of complication.
Complication is my chief concern. On one hand I would like what I am writing to be accessible by all age groups on some level, simple but not simplistic for the younger but with enough sophistication that it can be understood and relevant to the older. I have continued to discover, children are clever at picking up meaning.
When I wrote a similar piece a group of eight year olds grasped my meaning instantly. Oddly, it was the adults that took more work. I'm not comparing my work with Steven Moffat, that would be very silly, but when interviewed by the Huffington Post he said:
"he was not worried about the audience keeping up with the latest plot twists. He said: "They will get it. My nine-year-old got all this ages ago."'
I think that Moffat is right. It is often the adults that take the most work when writing for a wide range of ages. It is worth the work to get it right just to see how people engage with the finished result. When I finish writing my piece I often find that the process has not finished. When people read or hear it the meaning often changes again. My intended meaning is not necessarily what people take away from it. Often my own understanding of my own piece of writing changes. It is right that people evaluate meaning for themselves, not just accepting what I have to say at face value. Perhaps that is where hermeneutics and I part company; while it is nice to understand what a text might have meant to the original recipients in an attempt to mitigate any modern lens through which we may peer at the text, it doesn't necessarily mean that our reading of the text is invalid.
Back to my work. I don't think that I have cleared up for myself the meaning of what I am attempting to write, but hopefully it will begin to emerge.
Looking back at the time when I was studying Hermeneutics, or rather trying to avoid it, the focus was on meaning. What does a particular text mean, what did it mean to the people to which it was intended originally, and what social/economic/cultural factors then and now affect our reading of the text? I suppose that it made me more conscious and careful about what I commit to the page. In all honesty I am not especially bothered by how this blog comes across as I seem to be the only one that reads it. I am not sure that there are many people out there that would be particularly interested in reading the addled ramblings of a lifelong procrastinator. However, when it comes to my job I am extremely concerned about meaning.
For example, writing for a particular age group, especially children, complicates how meaning is expressed. Writing about the role of mothers when women are still routinely consigned to the role of mother above any other (I am not saying that motherhood is in any way inferior or wrong, but that it is still used in a patriarchal way), when the concept of family is much more fluid and when people have had negative experiences of motherhood (and indeed fatherhood) is difficult. Add in the fact that it has to be appropriate for the ages of 5 to 85 and that adds another layer of complication.
Complication is my chief concern. On one hand I would like what I am writing to be accessible by all age groups on some level, simple but not simplistic for the younger but with enough sophistication that it can be understood and relevant to the older. I have continued to discover, children are clever at picking up meaning.
When I wrote a similar piece a group of eight year olds grasped my meaning instantly. Oddly, it was the adults that took more work. I'm not comparing my work with Steven Moffat, that would be very silly, but when interviewed by the Huffington Post he said:
"he was not worried about the audience keeping up with the latest plot twists. He said: "They will get it. My nine-year-old got all this ages ago."'
I think that Moffat is right. It is often the adults that take the most work when writing for a wide range of ages. It is worth the work to get it right just to see how people engage with the finished result. When I finish writing my piece I often find that the process has not finished. When people read or hear it the meaning often changes again. My intended meaning is not necessarily what people take away from it. Often my own understanding of my own piece of writing changes. It is right that people evaluate meaning for themselves, not just accepting what I have to say at face value. Perhaps that is where hermeneutics and I part company; while it is nice to understand what a text might have meant to the original recipients in an attempt to mitigate any modern lens through which we may peer at the text, it doesn't necessarily mean that our reading of the text is invalid.
Back to my work. I don't think that I have cleared up for myself the meaning of what I am attempting to write, but hopefully it will begin to emerge.