All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
[ 6 minute read ]
From your perspective
Sonder and believing you
Sometimes, it is difficult to focus on something when there are noises in our peripheral field. One of the things I like to do is to offer a parallel to an existing problem. I often fail to remember that many people need declarative statements to help them to understand something. In creative writing, writers are mindful to 'show' and not tell. A writer may show that a woman is (stereotypically from the writer's point of view) annoyed because she is banging pots and pans while she does the washing up. It is just as likely that any man would bang pots and pans when he is annoyed or upset, so the scene works as a device to show emotion but not specifically and exclusively a woman's or man's emotional state. The problem the writer has is that any reader may take umbrage at the writer stereotyping behaviour and attributing specific behaviour to a particular set of people. Because most of us know that it is lazy to show women stereotypically doing the washing up, writers need to sometimes swap characteristics and activities for other one's. I prefer that a women 'shown' as being annoyed bangs the tools around while she is fixing the car or lawnmower, and a man slams the washing machine door because he is annoyed that there are stubborn marks on the clothes that have just come out of the washing machine. I think these are better characters in a story. However, for many people these roles are so improbable that they would dismiss the intent behind the writing of them. Perhaps the writer did not target these people as potential readers.
It can be frustrating when someone does not use declarative statements in a relationship. I had one girlfriend who simply would not tell me anything; she insisted on using oblique actions and statements not unlike having been brainwashed with Neuro-linguistic programming. She had a particular mindset that would not allow me to ponder a question aloud. 'Huh, I don't know!' she would bluster, as though I expected her to know the answer. I realise now that I affronted her because her self-esteem rested on her recognition of being knowledgeable in her field and this being reinforced by being a lecturer at Exeter University. For her, I suspect, any area in which she could not make a declarative statement that could be traced to concrete knowledge was an area that made her uncomfortable. I think, emotional relationships were not her strong suit. That said, any kind of relationship for me is an area in which I am largely blindfolded and cursed with fingers that cannot remove cotton-wool from my ears. Scrabble as much as I like, most of the time I simply cannot see or hear what the relationship is about.
How frustrating it is when we feel that everyone knows something and we cannot get an 'in' or a handle on the main theme of a subject. I read a blog post, in early Summer, by a man who was desperate for a straight answer to a question he was asked for his first Open University assignment. He said he had already asked for an extension. I knew how he felt and I was extremely upset that I could not help him. I would happily explain the question he had been set if I could, but as a student I am, without question, banned from doing that. All Open University students have to be able to work out not only what a question is really asking but also how to best answer it within a constraining word-count. I did however comment on his post to let him know that his cry did not merely dissipate in the dark, unheard.
All my relationships are like that. Which reminds me that I usually forget that I have experienced a moment of sonder; a recognition that everyone else thinks that they are at the centre of their world. However, I almost never apply that understanding except when I write. Indeed, I have been amazed that while quarreling with my wife she cannot see anything from my perspective. But, right here, the canny among us will realise that while I am scratching my head wondering why she is so dense, I am the one who is blind to her perception. It is all about me, right?
This isn't how I want to be; raking through the ashes of our problems to find clues on what went wrong. Perhaps leaving cryptic clues that are immutable and unaffected by heat and drenching is not a good approach to 'showing and not telling'. For example, mentioning that I am going to the Post Office to collect a portrait because the Post Office will not deliver it unless they deface it first, might not be a good way of saying I am going to buy a stamp with King Charles on it. However, I expect most writers would try to consider all actions they want to write about from as many different angles as they can. Certainly, if I cannot use cryptic language and statements in a story I might consider putting the same in as one of the character's soliloquy that may be overheard by someone who has no background knowledge of where the character is going or has been. Of course, if the character returns home to their partner who does know they have bought a stamp the strangeness of the spoken observance is not strange at all; it is a fact: The only time the Post Office will deliver a portrait of King Charles in the form of a stamp is when they deface it first with a postmark that forms a link between the stamp and the envelope it sits on. This is much like the wax seal on letters of yore. It occurs to me that perhaps the stamp would be better placed over the edge of the envelope flap to show that if it is unbroken that the letter has not been tampered with. But, paranoid me thinks there is a reason why they are not placed there. After all, the Post Office was once Government owned, and it is essential that some letters are regarded as potentially detrimental to the country's security, or at least the writer and recipient.
In any case, looking at a question from many sides may reveal the intent behind a question. Typically, if a man or woman living with their partner is asked where they have been at two in the morning from their shared bed, while one is in pyjamas and the other fully dressed, it is because there is some suspicion that one of them had more fun than the other. Aha, this questioner thinks I met someone somewhere. Perhaps, I should tell the truth and say I went to buy a surprise present which is in the kitchen because I suddenly realise how I never show my appreciation of your kindness. Otherwise, If I say, 'Nowhere', I will exacerbate your fear of betrayal. How will my present be received from a sour aspect later this morning? Even if I make breakfast in bed for you it will serve to present myself as guilty of something. Planting a seed of doubt is not a good idea; so sneaking out at night might be a 'no-go'.
Deconstructing a question might be a good practice if it can be reassembled without it being warped by individual predilections....or maybe it should just never be shared.
As Oscar Wilde said, 'The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.'
