Limits of the Text

‘Words, words, words.’

-          Shakespeare, Hamlet (Act 2 Scene 2, ln192)

The problem with words is their limitations, even if one of the beauties of language is that it is limitless.

In order to articulate a feeling or idea, one must first establish a point of reference with a reader using either a simile, “it was as though”, or a metaphor, “it was”. However, for these literary emotive devices to work, an author must assume that the point of reference is universal, or at the very least experienced by his/her readership. For example, addressing “it felt like snow” to a Western reader is a lot more effective than if the same phrase was used to address a south Indian reader. In the same way, “it had the texture of lassi” may not be as easily understood the other way around.

This, however, is surmountable by using universal references, or increasingly accurate translations, and explanations. Communicating an emotion, on the other hand, is substantially more complicated. One automatically assumes that the word “sad” means the same to everyone, when this, of course is quite impossible. As a world of over 6.6 billion people, the chances of any two people leading exactly the same life is impossible. No matter how minute the difference, it will still be there. So, for everyone, the words used to describe the world from their perspective are slightly different. Phrases, such as “I felt small”, are capable of emoting a range of responses in their reader, and can never be said to truly capture the essence of what the writer is trying to say.

Throughout the years, poets and authors have sought to explain themselves, or rather, their perspective, to the world by using excessively lengthy sentences in the somewhat vain hope of creating a unified readership. This, sadly, can never be the case. No matter how finitely and accurately an author feels they describe a certain emotion or point, there is bound to be a group of people, however small, who disagree with something about it. Perhaps the use of words is not concise, or too concise, too metaphorical, or too physical. The possibilities, as they say, are endless.

In order to avoid this, or recapture it, writers have a tendency to borrow words from each other. Quoting creates a shared point of reference, because both writer and reader can relate to the quote, the emotions that they experienced on first reading it, and, hopefully, the new perspective that the context has thrown upon it. However, this is not always as useful as it may at first appear. Quotes in writing seem to imply a sense of authority. Phrases like “as Rousseau once said…”, however accurate, when used excessively create a pretentious or high-brow impression of the writer, and rather than encouraging a reader to connect to the text, instead act as a barrier between text and understanding.

So, perhaps the purpose of writing should not be to capture old emotions, but evoke new ones. In an age where time is the proverbial sterling, maybe the key is getting the most out of it. Therefore, when reading, it is important not to criticise an author in terms of what is lacking, but instead in terms of what is left to the imagination of the reader. Although words may not always be able to capture our emotions, they have certainly always been able to evoke them. The way forward, then, is a combination of both old and new, a post-modern collaboration of the emotions evoked by a text, and those we are reminded we have already felt.