"I'm talking to you and it's basically a direct communication, whereas if I'm writing a letter to you and you read the letter, there are like 12 extra deconstruction and reconstruction steps in the communication"
About this Quote
Anderson is making a craft argument disguised as a commonsense observation: speech feels “direct,” writing feels like a Rube Goldberg machine. The line works because it refuses the romantic myth of the page as pure transmission. Instead, it frames writing as engineering - a chain of handoffs where meaning gets disassembled and rebuilt, with failure points at every joint.
The “12 extra” steps isn’t a statistic; it’s a comic exaggeration that still lands because any working writer recognizes the hidden labor. In conversation, tone, timing, facial cues, and immediate feedback do a lot of meaning-making for you. On the page, you have to manufacture those cues synthetically: diction in place of voice, punctuation in place of breath, pacing in place of presence. Then the reader rehydrates it all inside a different head, in a different room, on a different day. That reconstruction is interpretation, not duplication.
Subtextually, Anderson is arguing for humility about authorial control. The distance between intent and reception isn’t a bug of literature; it’s the medium. Every “extra step” is also a chance for drift: irony misread as sincerity, a character’s silence mistaken for an author’s. Coming from a prolific genre novelist, it also reads as a defense of clarity and momentum: if the pipeline is already this complex, don’t clog it with unnecessary obscurity.
Context matters: this is the working writer talking shop, not the theorist. It’s a practical reminder that writing isn’t just expression; it’s interface design for another person’s mind.
The “12 extra” steps isn’t a statistic; it’s a comic exaggeration that still lands because any working writer recognizes the hidden labor. In conversation, tone, timing, facial cues, and immediate feedback do a lot of meaning-making for you. On the page, you have to manufacture those cues synthetically: diction in place of voice, punctuation in place of breath, pacing in place of presence. Then the reader rehydrates it all inside a different head, in a different room, on a different day. That reconstruction is interpretation, not duplication.
Subtextually, Anderson is arguing for humility about authorial control. The distance between intent and reception isn’t a bug of literature; it’s the medium. Every “extra step” is also a chance for drift: irony misread as sincerity, a character’s silence mistaken for an author’s. Coming from a prolific genre novelist, it also reads as a defense of clarity and momentum: if the pipeline is already this complex, don’t clog it with unnecessary obscurity.
Context matters: this is the working writer talking shop, not the theorist. It’s a practical reminder that writing isn’t just expression; it’s interface design for another person’s mind.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by Kevin
Add to List
