CREATIVITY. It's a fickle fiend for some. For others, it comes innately. Creativity is defined as "the use of the imagination or original ideas" in Oxford Dictionary. While this is a successful, working definition for some, others might have a difficult time conceptualizing the idea of originality. What happens when the dictionary uses a word that for some people is indefinable?
What does it mean to be original? Some scholars would argue that there is no such thing as originality, because everything that will ever be stated has been stated already - but again, that depends on the definition of "Original." Which may lead to an even more interesting question; who decides what the definitions of words are? I realize this is all very helical in thought, but I guess after class on Wednesday, I really began to think and question the language I had always taken for granted. Of course, it's SO obvious that "tree" means "tree" - however, WHAT type of tree are we REALLY talking about? Elm? Fir? Weeping Willow? PALM? (However, I can't imagine someone thinking of tree in its general form as a palm tree - to ME that's bizarre, but then again, everyone interprets/understands language in a different way).
I guess it's a really cynical way of looking at the world: No matter how articulate or how much into detail one writes in, it will never give the reader the perfect picture, for everyone has different life experiences that shape their mind/the way they think. NO MATTER WHAT, the author will always FAIL?!
wow. that sucks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i believe that definitions in general really don't explain some words to their full extent, even if the dictionary passage offers 20+ different meanings. and you pose a great question; who does get to decide what the definition is? one slight variation could sway the interpretation. you are correct, blame is always imposed upon the descriptor, but that words make authors very powerful.
Cynical, maybe, but mostly true. But that is what is so great about reading, especially fiction. Readers have their own visions of how things look and play out. That's why I love reading, but I usually am disappointed when seeing a movie version of the book. It just doesn't look how I think it should! I don't think the author is failing, though. As long as he/she communicates the plot correctly, has developed characters, etc, and the reader enjoys the book, is it failing?
I don't think that the author "fails" when he/she cannot convey specific details to the reader. I would tend to agree with Barthes in his opinion that the reader's interpretation is more important than the author's original intent, at least as far as most writing is considered.
And just as a side note, I agree, books are almost always better than the movies that are based off of them.
Another interesting problem in terms of word definition is posed by language barriers. If deficiencies are created in conveying meaning among people who understand and use the same language, what potential for successful interpretation is there among people who employ different languages? Many languages have words that simply do not exist in similar meaning in other languages, and are, therefor, non-translatable without detailed explanation. Many words are signifiers for concepts or ideals, which only complicates the matter further.
Post a Comment