At fairly regular intervals, it seems, I find myself returning to what we might call David Olson’s “originary prose scene.” I’m referring to that place in The World on Paper where he models the cognitive transformations wrought by literacy. To recall: Olson locates the difference in writing in the representation of the speech of others. In an oral culture, if you report the speech of another, you would simply imitate the manner in which that person said it; and presumably, put your own spin on it at the same time. So, if you’re reporting the speech of someone who who was himself reporting on some imminently dangerous situation, you, in reporting his speech, would speak in an urgent, excited manner; meanwhile, if you though he was exaggerating the danger or its imminence, you might include that in your restatement by exaggerating the urgency of the speech (and you’d have to know how exaggerated you’d have to be to convey to your audience exactly how exaggerated you consider that person’s concern to be). In writing, if you want to convey the other’s tone along with your assessment of the tone you have to do so with metalinguistic markers—the other “claimed” (thereby distancing yourself from the “claim”), he “exclaimed,” “contended,” etc.
Infiltrative Inscription
Infiltrative Inscription
Infiltrative Inscription
At fairly regular intervals, it seems, I find myself returning to what we might call David Olson’s “originary prose scene.” I’m referring to that place in The World on Paper where he models the cognitive transformations wrought by literacy. To recall: Olson locates the difference in writing in the representation of the speech of others. In an oral culture, if you report the speech of another, you would simply imitate the manner in which that person said it; and presumably, put your own spin on it at the same time. So, if you’re reporting the speech of someone who who was himself reporting on some imminently dangerous situation, you, in reporting his speech, would speak in an urgent, excited manner; meanwhile, if you though he was exaggerating the danger or its imminence, you might include that in your restatement by exaggerating the urgency of the speech (and you’d have to know how exaggerated you’d have to be to convey to your audience exactly how exaggerated you consider that person’s concern to be). In writing, if you want to convey the other’s tone along with your assessment of the tone you have to do so with metalinguistic markers—the other “claimed” (thereby distancing yourself from the “claim”), he “exclaimed,” “contended,” etc.