Have you ever heard one of those Hollywood stories where a crazy fan has treated an actor as if they are the character they play? It is probably more likely to happen if the actor is in a series rather than a movie as in a series the character is consistent and seen in many situations and the audience builds a relationship with them, albeit an illusory one.

This is likely more pronounced when the content of the series or movie is more 'true to life' and mimics something that may be construed as a reality of sorts. It is easier to build a relationship with someone who operates in a more relatable, similar environment.

Even though this illusion can be held for the duration of the show, most have very little confusion understanding that the actor is not the character. But, when it comes to reading someone's writing, this line becomes blurrier.<div class="pull-right">https://i.imgur.com/taqlUWJ.jpg</div>

This is still dependent on the genre of the writing of course and not many people confuse J.K Rowling for Harry potter. But, when the content of the writing covers 'real life' many readers will start to associate the text read with the author of the text as if they are one and the same.

Of course, some writers do write exactly what they think about a topic and leave nothing to the imagination on their stance. Others write fiction that resembles real life and some write from varied perspectives about the way things could be, or may be.

There is some research that suggests that the the brain doesn't do a very good job of processing negative statements like 'Don't Smoke' become 'smoke',and I would posit that it also has difficulty discerning 'possibly, maybe, perhaps' type statements also.

This is where I myself like to write. I use these types of non-committal words as I want to give the space for a reader to roam and explore. If I use definitive terms there is little more work to be done than agree or disagree with a statement.

For example, if I am talking to an anti-abortion activist who believes that no abortion is suitable and I say, there *are* cases it is, I am setting up an adversary position counter to their own which is likely to be met with resistance. If I say, there *may be* cases, the chances of them doing a little thought work to see if there are actually cases they can think of where it may be justifiable goes up significantly.<div class="pull-right">https://i.imgur.com/GL391Bc.jpg</div>

But, in saying that there may be, still gives them an impression of my own positioning and the possibility of 'maybe' gets translated into *this is what you believe to be true,* rather than *this is what you believe may be true under some circumstances, or perhaps not at all*. After all, I may not have even thought about any of the circumstances that there *may be* to support it as a held position.

What I do come across however is that many believe that what a person writes is a look into the heart and mind of the author and in some cases this may be somewhat true but, in other cases, there may be a large divide between the written word and the position of the writer.

But, this up in the air situation concerning 'who an author is' is unsatisfactory to many who want to be able to imagine that they know where the author is coming from. People like to pin-down and box others and with so many non-committal statements, it is hard to work out what type of box is required.

Brains don't like undefined, unknown, blurry open loops so, rather than leave the author unboxed, one gets rid of the 'maybes and perhaps' and ties the statements directly to the author as labels that get stuck to their shiny new box.

The other reason I write in this way is that I am trying to take myself out as an influencing factor for the text. The information, story, prose or whatever happens to be read should be considered first without regard paid to the source of the information so that it can be independently and more objectively processed. Any value within for the reader should exist without any knowledge of who the author is. This is of course dependent on the type of information and purpose for reading.

I wrote an earlier post about how writing for me is an exploration of myself and my relationship with the environment in which I operate. This is also why I do not only write about what I agree with as if I do, I may be reinforcing a poor position and never explore alternatives. Many very religious people spend years studying their own religion because it is the 'right way' but hardly touch upon the doctrine of others. How do they know they are correct?<div class="pull-right">https://i.imgur.com/yNSZsKh.jpg</div>

So, I explore as wide as possible and often push myself mentally into corners I do not want to go. This means that when someone says they agree or disagree with 'me' they may be right or wrong. What they have judged as 'me' is actually the writing they have read and the concepts I have put forward, not me. The words are never the thing. 

For example, I could potentially write an entire piece about what it is like to give birth and present it as an experience. If one came across the piece and agreed with it, what are they really agreeing with? Will they agree less if they know I am a man? Now, that isn't to say that the article is untrue because the writer hasn't or is unable to experience it, it just means that attaching the story to the author is nonsensical.

By removing the author as an influencing factor, there is much more value to be found in a whole range of information and it is less likely to be blindly swallowed and more likely to be considered by the individual. It also leaves more room for engagement and conversation about the topic rather than argument about who is right. But for most, knowing the author makes them appreciate the work more.

To finish with, I will link to an old Youtube video where Joshua Bell, a famous violinist plays in the DC metro for 45 minutes on a 3.5 million dollar instrument. Most people just walk by barely taking notice of the beauty they are hearing and assume it is just another poor guy trying to earn a dollar. Would their behaviour change if they knew he was famous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]