Jane, you ignorant slut

I'm pretty sure I don't have any readers named Jane. If so, this was not targeted towards you! Some of us of a certain age remember the early years of "Saturday Night Live," when Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd would engage in a debate on the Point-Counterpoint segment of "Weekend Update." Jane would always go first, and Dan's immediate retort when it was his turn was "Jane, you ignorant slut." It's one of those phrases that has entered into our pop culture, and it still makes me laugh!

The other day, I wrote about paranoia and the blogging hazard of people thinking that you're addressing them with what you write. I mentioned that I believe that writing is not always a good way of communicating (although it's the one I like the best) and got this comment from Rebecca:

I do think writing can be an in-depth form of communication when used specifically to inform someone of what exactly you are thinking. Sometimes, without the distraction of body movement, pauses, and vocal interruptions, a person can convey everything they need via the written medium.

However, for it to be truly effective, it does need a follow up 'talk' ~ Just my oh so very humble opinion. For example, I think this written entry is detailed, nicely conveyed and leaves little for the imagination to expand on. I had no doubts or confusion about your thoughts.

Rebecca and I exchanged a couple of emails about it, and I think we both see where the other is coming from. (Thanks for your kind words on my writing in that entry, too, Rebecca!) I do agree that writing is a great form of communication, and I do my best communicating in that forum. I don't feel that I'm a good speaker, and I don't enjoy talking on the phone. I try to write with clarity and specificity, and hope I succeed most of the time. However, I still feel that subtle nuances in speech patterns and body language can't be conveyed by the written word. As I wrote to Rebecca, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to this is the interpretation by the reader. If they are of a particular mindset, they could very well interpret your words in a completely different way in which they were intended.

I found an interesting couple of articles about communication. The Aristotelian process deals with what he called rhetoric, the study of communication. His process dealt with oratory, but I think it can be expanded somewhat to include written discussions. He divided rhetoric into three components: speaker (writer), subject, and listener (reader), and believed that the latter is what determines the speech's end and object, and holds the key to whether or not effective communication occurs.

I think that where any communication breaks down is when you are dealing with a hostile audience. Whether it's a room full of people who disagree with your message, or readers who have their own agenda and own mindset, no matter how clear your words or your writing, they will refuse to hear or understand your meaning. In other words, they already believe they know exactly what you are trying to convey, so don't feel the need to process an alternative view. They interpret things the way they want to, regardless of your intentions.

How do you communicate? Do you try to read, process, and understand a subject so that you can write or speak coherently and understandably on it? Anyone can throw a few quotes and definitions out there and try to make a case for whatever they're trying to prove, but unless you can gather the information and comprehend it to the best of your ability, your argument will remain incoherent and often nonsensical.

In Aristotle's process, shown in the above diagram, a project (whether a speech, an article, or a blog entry) begins with identifying what you are trying to convey and researching it. Read and learn what your arguments can and should be, based on facts, your own emotions and passion, and the ethical considerations of your subject. Next, consider the logical connections and flow of these things. How do your thoughts fit together? What point leads logically to the next? What flows well? Third, "pretty it up." Put your vocabulary and command of the language to work. Use compelling imagery with your words, but keep it understandable and clear. Finally, tie it all together and deliver your message with authority, knowledge, and persuasion. If you've done your homework, your argument will make good sense and your audience, listeners or readers, will at least listen and think about what you have to say. You might not convince them, but I'm willing to bet you'll get an "I can't say I agree, but she does make a compelling argument."

The best writers I encounter, in print or on the Web, and the best speeches I hear have this in common: they fully comprehend the issue at hand, they are able to weave facts and information into a coherent narrative, and they are able to deliver their argument with clarity and conviction. The worst come across as pretentious, spouting disjointed ramblings and random facts and figures, inject meaningless invective, and are unable to put it all together to make any sort of convincing argument, let alone something that might be enjoyable to read. (Aren't you proud of me for not mentioning Sarah Palin?) I think it really helps to try and figure out who you're trying to reach, and what you're trying to accomplish. Is your purpose to make people think about something, perhaps bring them over to your position? Or is it merely to further your own agenda and justify your own way of thinking? If you don't have the courage of your convictions, if you don't have facts to back up your stance on a subject, if you can’t be coherent, how can you hope to convince others of the rightness of your position?