As I was reading this week’s assignments, two scenarios came to mind. The first is the well know question about the tree falling in the forest. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? In other words, does the sound originate with the tree (the author in this case), or with the hearer (the reader in this case)? Based on the science of sound waves, we know that if there are no receptors, ear drums, there is no sound. It is the sound waves pressing against the tissue of the ear drum that “creates” the sound. It is the presence of a receptor that enables there to be sound. This is also true for communication. A person may speak, sing, or sign. But if there is no one present to receive the message, communication has not occurred. Communication requires both a sender and a receiver in order to be complete. Is it the same for a text? A writer may create, and may even have a meaning in mind. But us the meaning real if there is no receptor/reader? Looking at it this way, it seems that the receptor/reader does create meaning. On the other hand, a person standing in a forest cannot hear a tree fall if no tree falls, a listener cannot hear a conversation if there is no sender, and a reader cannot create meaning if no text has been written. It seems probable that the creation of meaning is a complimentary task between writer and reader.

The second scenario that came to mind was one in which a man and a woman are driving home after work. He asks her if she wants to stop somewhere for a drink. She thinks to herself that she is happily married and does not want to have an affair with her carpool companion, so she responds that no, she does not want to stop for a drink. He is highly offended because he was thirsty and wanted to stop for a drink to relieve his thirst and she would not let him. In this instance we have a clear case of the writer/speaker having one meaning in mind and the hearer/reader understanding/creating another. Is one right and the other wrong? Not really. There was simply a miscommunication, a misunderstanding of the meaning of “to stop for a drink.” (We won’t even get into WHY the woman interpreted the question the way in which she did).

Words are only signifiers. We are already one step removed from actual “meaning” when we resort to words instead of the reality. By creating images, as Pound does, he is attempting to recreate the signified in a new way, with images created by words. But they are still only signifiers, sometimes multiple steps removed from “reality.” It is little wonder that there is miscommunication between writer and reader when both are relying on their own interpretations of what is already an interpretation of reality.