"Writing establishes a context-free language, an autonomous discourse that cannot be doubted or directly questioned because the writer’s discourse is separated from his written text."
The previous statement proposes some polemical aspects about reading and its credibility for readers... I agree with the first part of this proposal, when it says writing establishes a "context-free language" and that it is an autonomous discourse, because it is not forbidden for a person to write whatever he/she wants to write or to express on a paper and through all those possible types of writing, not only through traditional writing, but bearing in mind it is possible to write in different ways such as painting, drawings, etc.
According to the second part of this statement where writing is considered as an established discourse which can’t be doubted or questioned because the writer won’t always be tied to his/her book for answering any question the readers have about his/her texts and defending them. I DON’T AGREE WITH IT because everybody has a different mind, every single person has a different thought and can interpret what he/she reads giving his/her point of view, opinion, position and debating what the writer proposes from his/her knowledge. Actually, some books don’t have a successful content, their information is not well supported or believable; that’s why all what is written is not a law established by the writer and must be believe it or apply it. In conclusion, readers can be absolutely doubted and questioned what is written.
No comments:
Post a Comment