This is not an obstacle. This is a botched diagnosis.
I cannot control how readers interpret what I write. *No writer can.* They can pick up zero of the nuance I put in, or all of them plus more I never intended to. Every person's experience is different. Communication is not a strict one-way flow of ideas with no variance or equivocation permitted. The differences in interpretation are what make reading and writing so meaningful, the synthesis of viewpoints. Treating this as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a basic characteristic of our reality is like trying to work around inertia.
I'm afraid this was a botched understanding. A total misunderstanding. A botched inference. And botched inference is not a good look, on anybody.
I agree it is not something easily overcome. It seems like a total obvious no-brainer that everyone would agree that it is not easily overcome. That's what makes it the biggest obstacle we face.
Also inferred here may be that the agenda is to remove the obstacle, which also greatly oversimplifies and misunderstands this issue. This also should be plainly obvious, which is that the agenda is not to remove an obstacle that can't be removed. The agenda is to write so that the obstacle is as minimized as possible for the reader, so that the communication can be its most accurate.
What is important and key in that is being able to understand what that objective view the reader has, is, the best we can, and trying to make the writing shape that view as well as we can, to fit the understanding of the story we are trying to show them. That is the agenda here, communicating the thoughts clearly, and not considering the objective view is not doing the due diligence of doing the best one can for the reader.
This has nothing to do whatsoever with the ego of the author. It is done only for the reader. That should
be obvious, but now I wonder if it is.
Only Captain Obvious needs to point out that it is not easily overcome and that the experience is different for every reader. Telling us that violates Aaron Sorkin's cardinal rule of never telling someone what they already know, which kills what you might be saying, stone cold dead, and removes all credibility. And it forces people who might respond to be obvious, too, since the original understanding was such a botched misunderstanding based on inaccurate inference, not a position comfortable to be in, IMHO.
And I vigorously
disagree that communication is not a one-way flow of ideas. In dialogue between two people, or in the Socratic method, ideally it is not.
In written prose, the topic at hand here, which is done, finished, published, bought, and then read, it is without question a single flow in one direction. Based on the laws of space and time, it can be no other way. That's a difference with a distinction, and that should be
as plain as day.
Apparently, now I
need to be obvious: Your reader has no option to revise your novel, no matter how badly or arrogantly you write it (assuming it ever reaches publication). It's one-way communication only.
That makes the agenda to write it well, try to understand what might be their objective view as well as you can, and remove the arrogance of the supposed importance of the egoic author subjective view.
Only then does the reader have a fighting chance to understand what the intent is of what is being said. Only then can they benefit from your supposed brilliance.
A reader has a perfect right to parse subtext however they will. That will include inference, but that's OK. The trick for the writer is to imply in a way which channels the inference toward accuracy. That's what working hard to understand their objective view does.
But the forum contributor, much more than the reader, has a responsibility to try to understand, and not infer
, and to not respond without at least making a minimal effort to understand, first.