In and out and 'round-about
Submitted by ETC on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 13:42.
"As a photographer and writer..."
The above phrase was my original introduction to my first blog entry. I intended to comment upon Chatman's comparison of the visual arts to the written. As I began, however, I couldn't get past that first phrase. Should I write "photographer and writer," or "writer and photographer"? What difference would it make in the reader's mind? Which version would be more memorable? Am I a "photographer who writes," or "a writer who creates photos"? Does it matter?
Yes.
This deliberation over the structure of my sentence is a fantastic example of how discourse affects story: each choice of words and of their order creates a different meaning, however slight. For example, whichever name comes first ("photographer" or "writer") automatically assumes a higher status as a label. Thus, even the most elementary of elements of story--grammatical structure--plays a very important role in painting a picture for the audience.
Perhaps I am a writeographer. Or a photowriter.
ETC
- ETC's blog
- Login to post comments
Writography
Yes, you are :)
Though even in these neologisms you can still imply a hierarchy, if you want to. I think you're absolutely write about the implications of order. That's partly what I was getting at in class when we discussed Chatman's diagrams. As a discursive structure themselves, the diagrammatic relationships he provides imply more than he might mean them to. I don't recall if he explicitly refers to story and discourse as coeval or parallel structures, but I can't help getting a sense that they're not quite either. Even the idea that they exist somewhat independently suggests to me that, in this formula, the story is the "real" thing whereas discourse is "just" the story's manifestation. Maybe I'm just reading him too platonically, or maybe he's really writing it that way? Do you get that impression?