I appreciate your insight here. You didn’t mention it specifically but reading the post made me aware of the dialogical piece of the author’s experience: she’s often very aware of where the audience is as she’s writing, “reading” them, if you will.
We might say that in a conversation, 1+1=3: your initial statement (1) opens something in me (+1) that I share and then we develop it together (+1 = 3). In the reading experience, the author brings her offering (1) with the unrealized anticipation of the reader’s response (1/2, since it’s as yet unrealized), and the reader brings his reading (+1) and then his unrealized response to the author (again, 1/2). You end up with the same sum with the dialogical addition of 1 split on either side of the written expression instead of simply following it.
It also seems worth noting that “preparation for quality conversation with others,” on the flip side of what you’re naming, can be a real drag and hamper the reading experience at times.
Very insightful analysis. I think you’ve characterized the internal logic very well. I would add that this pattern is also iterative (when readers and groups of readers converse) and with some coordination, you can even see the pattern play out in higher orders among groups.
I appreciate your insight here. You didn’t mention it specifically but reading the post made me aware of the dialogical piece of the author’s experience: she’s often very aware of where the audience is as she’s writing, “reading” them, if you will.
We might say that in a conversation, 1+1=3: your initial statement (1) opens something in me (+1) that I share and then we develop it together (+1 = 3). In the reading experience, the author brings her offering (1) with the unrealized anticipation of the reader’s response (1/2, since it’s as yet unrealized), and the reader brings his reading (+1) and then his unrealized response to the author (again, 1/2). You end up with the same sum with the dialogical addition of 1 split on either side of the written expression instead of simply following it.
It also seems worth noting that “preparation for quality conversation with others,” on the flip side of what you’re naming, can be a real drag and hamper the reading experience at times.
Very insightful analysis. I think you’ve characterized the internal logic very well. I would add that this pattern is also iterative (when readers and groups of readers converse) and with some coordination, you can even see the pattern play out in higher orders among groups.