January 20, 2005
-
The Subtext
I was an onlooker to a conversation recently between an accountant and an engineer that consisted almost entirely of numbers. It went something like this:
Accountant: 5320?
Engineer: 10/31.
Accountant: 3206?
Engineer: 11/15.
Accountant: 9149 double-acting?
Engineer: Infinity.
At this point, the engineer looked at me and I rolled my eyes, because I knew it was supposed to be a joke. Fortunately this was all the interaction required of me, because even though I'm familiar with the numbers they were bandying about and should have followed the exchange easily, in truth the whole thing was entirely lost on me. Because I wasn't focussing on the words, I was enjoying an invisible, silent (and for all I know completely fallacious) subtext to the conversation having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'm like that. I work in an environment rife with numbers and specifications. I think I provide what's necessary, but I certainly don't add much to the dialogue. My role is generally facilitative: the organization of people and numbers into boxes and timeframes, and the analysis of how to better that organization. This affords me the opportununity to be a voyeur in an unusual setting: the studier of subtext in a context where subtext is often entirely denied.
People don't, of course, actually fall neatly into the stereotypical categories society creates for them, but it's axiomatic that if you focus your creative energy on numbers and specifications you might ignore the greyer areas of personality and human foible. You might even prefer to claim they don't exist -- or at the least, are less important than more subjective data.
On the other hand, studiers of subtext need be wary as well. Having a conversation with me can be a bit of a minefield. You say:
"Well -- looks like the weather's improved since morning!"
and I hear:
"I'm distraught about my partner and may commit some desperate act this afternoon."
It makes for a great story, but it renders actual communication a little tenuous.
Comments (15)
I am not sure this all has to do with your job. I think it's more of a personal issue. I find myself doing that a lot too, but I think it's because of my natural sense of helping people. I can usually sense when something is wrong with someone emotionally, even when they are talking to me about something completely unrelated. Perhaps in some cased you might overdramatize, but I'm not sure convo with you would be tenuous. I think someone might actually open up to you if they knew what you were thinking....just My opinion!
look on the bright side. that's better than finding sexual subtexts in ordinary conversation.
examples:
- it is hot today (i want to take off my clothes)
- do you want coffee? (i want to take off my clothes)
- you're a pervert (i want to take off my clothes)
see?
but seriously: it is the people who get both the literal meaning and the subtext who get the most out of a relationship. hey they would even make good therapists or lawyers.
...it's axiomatic that if you focus your creative energy on numbers and specifications you might ignore the greyer areas of personality and human foible.
Remember when I said I was all about the choice crumbs? I'd like to expand that to include the greyer areas. No way I can ignore them; I don't spend one iota of creative energy on numbers and specs.
I can't imagine a single conversation with you being tenuous in nature.
(Damned if virg's first example didn't just explain a great many summer miscommunications....)
or like when i say to my kids, "you've played enough video games, don't make me tell you again to put on your pajamas and go to bed," and they hear, "bzzzzPLAYzzzzzVIDEO GAMESbzzzzzzDON'TbzzzzzzGO TO BED."
You are amazing. Now, what you should have heard: I just read your blog from yesterday, because I was saving it for when I could give it the attention that it deserves, and well, wow.
I'm glad I allowed myself 8.6 minutes to take a break from the house destruction to read this and respond. Not all of us technocrats are so fixated on numbers and quantitative reduction of life's data. I'm glad to say that I am one who at least tries to relate to what the little people think about all day. I don't agree that numberless, subjective aspects of life don't exist. It is probably true that they don't matter much.
Well, times up. I've analyzed your blog and properly categorized it for future reference. The next song on the CD is Willie Nelson singing Georgia. I always work better during that song, so I am back to it. (hmmmm, has to be some deeper meaning in that revelation)
Maybe that's why conversation has never been one of my strong points; I'm too busy paying attention to what's going on beneath the words. We need more people in this country who see subtext and who are willing to allow that spoken words and numberic quantities aren't everything. Too many of us are living by numbers and technical jargon, and missing the true meaning of it all.
I will certainly be careful to add more detail when having a discussion with you!
You should already know how funny I think the exchange between engineers and bean-counters is...
interesting web log. but you know what i mean.
Beautifully said!
Conversations with you tenuous? Nah. Interesting and twisted? Perhaps. Intellectually stimulating? I suspect. Blessings abound
Hey I have that same disease! Maybe we should start a support group; something like, "SORST: Sufferers of Overreative Subtext Syndrome".
Bwahahahahahaha - NOW of course, I'm wondering how much you hear during our conversations that you tactfully allow to pass by. . .
Comments are closed.