Let’s evaluate the validity of that statement. But before one can discuss that intelligently, there must be an agreement regarding what being able to talk entails, and similarly, what being able to write entails.
If talking just involves stringing sounds together, symbols could certainly be defined for each of those individual sounds. And those symbols could be strung together in the same sequence in which they were spoken. That visible sequence could be transmitted by sight rather than sound and communicates the same meaning. So sure, whatever you can say, could be put in writing. The visible symbols could represent sound phonemes, syllables, complete words, or common phrasing that have communal meaning.
I think stringing sounds together as a means of communication fairly represents what being able to talk entails. Some animals and people are better at it than others. It ranges from expressing ignorance to eloquence.
But was that what we meant when we referred to someone as being a writer? No. Writing is not merely recorded speech. It is a reflection, revision, and architecture of ideas. Putting a mic with a recorder in front of someone does not make that person what one considers to be a writer. If ‘writing’ were no more than transcribing, why are we fooling ourselves? Unedited speech looks like a playlist of incoherent thoughts when put on paper.
You didn’t learn to drive so you could circle the block where you take your daily walks. You learned to drive because walking to Seattle isn’t practical. Driving takes you places your feet would complaint about. And writing? Writing is the difference between taking a scenic road trip and wandering aimlessly through streets with your blinker on. We’ve all sat in the passenger seat with someone driving who was totally lost or had no set destination. Similarly, a playlist of incoherent thoughts is what unedited speech looks like on paper. Writing should be where the guy behind the wheel actually knows where he’s going.
Telling someone, “Oh, we need peanut butter when you’re at the store,” is not worthy of being written other than as two words on a shopping list. (Yes, I have made an exception here—one must do that occasionally.) If ‘writing’ is not different, and better, than talking, why bother?
The written word should be better than the spoken word because a person of normal intelligence can only string so many logical concepts together in a spoken statement without forgetting where they began or where they are going. If they keep talking past that point, they are just rambling like on a random tour of Tacoma. Written words do not leak out through our failing memories. They remain like bricks, and we can build on them to create beautiful structures in poetry or to communicate meaningful ideas rather than blather. Writing is not talking on paper — it is thinking, sharpened by silence when we’re doing it.
Leave a Reply