There’s an oft-quoted fact that 70% of our communication in a face-to-face encounter is non-verbal. In other words, we absorb more information from tone of voice and body language than we do from the actual words that we hear; that speaking to another person by phone risks losing much of the impact of our words while sending an email, letter or writing an article loses even more.
Does this mean that those who write are losing out on adding impact to their message by being unable to convey the deeper emotions and beliefs behind their words? Not at all; but perhaps it is worth a closer look to see just how much a writer can influence the way in which their message is received.
I started thinking about this as I approached the end of one of my favourite books. ‘The Shadow of the Sun’ by Richard Kapuściński is considered one of the all-time great examples of travel writing. Kapuściński, as the sole Polish foreign correspondent during the Cold War years, tells a colourful and captivating account of Africa during the years of newly gained independence and the many civil wars that ravaged the continent in the following decades. His vivid descriptions of the diversity of the African landscape, of the many people he meets on his travels and of the heartbreaking torture that kept much of the continent in needless poverty had me wanting more each time I came to the end of another chapter.
Yet something changed when I decided to read a little about the author himself. Rather than the dashing reporter with a sense of reckless adventure and a passion for uncovering the truth, here was a very different man if the various accounts are to be believed. He was an ardent Stalinist and eager communist party member in post-war Poland, and quite recently was uncovered as a secret agent, using his reporting work as a cover for espionage against alleged enemies of the Polish (and Soviet) regimes. It was, it seems, a dilemma of career vs morals and Kapuściński chose the former. To quote one of his peers Bronislaw Wildstein, “the guy agreed to commit abominations against others in return for the right to write books.”
So now when I read his accounts, I can’t help but set them in a new context. The picture in my mind when reading his journeys through Africa are no longer of a curious, sensitive man with a passion for anthropology; they are rather that of someone who is carrying his own dark secrets and perhaps wrestling his own demons. His observations on morality are now considered in the light of his own life rather than by the words alone.
Does it make a book that much more meaningful, knowing a little more about the person who was behind it? Whether or not it does, one thing is for certain. We rarely view the words we read in isolation. It is only natural to form a picture of the author and then to attempt to build those non-verbal cues up from that picture. When we get to know something about the person behind the words then those cues are irrevocably changed.
What does this mean for those who write online? Perhaps above all else that an audience will read an article and, like it or not, create their own perception of the author’s character and personality. As most authors will never meet their audience in real life, it is up to them to behave in the online world in such a way that the picture their readers create in their minds is one with which they are comfortable.
I finished “Shadow of the Sun” a couple of weeks ago, and have been meaning to look him up. I have another of his books on my “to be read” pile too. Trying to figure out if I would have even bought it had I known what you just revealed, I came to the conclusion that if he were still alive, maybe not, because why would I want to enrich someone whose moral compass was at odds with my instincts, and yet, I would have missed some wonderful writing, and knowledge which I am still taking in. The fact that he is dead, somehow, takes that responsibility off of me.
Your last paragraph – aren’t you just saying that we need to “market” ourselves?
I have to say that a writer’s backstory does matter, especially when writing non-ficton. For all Kapuściński’s writing which we enjoyed, we now know there was an underside to it which wasn’t written about.
I prefer not to read biographies of writers. Bruce Springsteen once said “trust the art not the artist.” When you read about writers, artists, politicians, atheletes or whomever you will eventually find that they are human and have weaknesses. I prefer that the knowledge of these weaknesses not tarnish their art or whatever product they are prestenting to the world.
I agree that a little background information about the writer is beneficial, but I prefer to keep this type of information limited.
Thanks for the valuable comments folks. I think you put it well Ted that there is a balance – the art should be able to stand alone and in this particular case there is no doubting the quality of the writer and his ability to describe with great skill and insight his experiences in Africa. On the other hand a little knowledge (and goodness knows any single article gives no than that on a person’s life) does add a bit of valuable context to the opinions they stated. I think I will still read more of Kapuscinski’s work, as these insights have in a way piqued my curiosity further.
Thank you Andy for bringing this work to my attention. I have never heard of this, but I can’t wait to read it after reading this post. I just have to find it. Unbelievably it appears the enormous Chicago library system does not have it. Will have to order it then.
nice one Andy!
The work is not the man
Wow.. I can not agree with your words:
“He was an ardent Stalinist and eager communist party member”
He considered himself a socialist (nothing wrong in it) but he was definitely not a stalinist.
At those times almost everyone had to be a communist party member.
My parents were mambers, too.
it meant nothing.
They kept spreadedng underground leaflets in the afternoons.
The notes Kapuscinski used to sent to secret police were of no any significance & not harmful to anyone.
Thank you for the many excellent comments on the topic.
Rafkoo, I can’t claim any authority on the truth behind Kapuscinski’s life and his party involvement and was merely quoting the accounts and accusations that I had read. That said, I prefer to think that you are correct.
As a side note I have just started his earlier book, Travels with Herodotus, which is already compelling reading.
Thank you for the many excellent comments on the topic.
Well. to be honest I’ve placed one comment only
If U r able to read in polish (surname sound polish enough) there is an excellent book dealing with Kapuściński’s biography:
“Kapuściński non-fiction” by Artur Domosławski
Warszawa: Świat Książki, 2010. ISBN 978-83-247-1906-8.
Hi Rafkoo, apologies for the confusion. I was thanking everyone who has added their comments on this thread – but it looks like I only wrote this to you…
Thanks for the book recommendation – I’ll look into this when I finish the current book. My Polish is ok although I don’t use it very much now so it is rusty, especially for reading and writing. But with a little practice…
I have the audiobook.
Shall U be interested…
I may ask you for that one when I’m ready to read it – thanks
Sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn’t. When it’s a personal piece/ book and the writer is part of the story, then it certainly matters – it’s all part of the recipe. Other times, the ability to be a dispassionate observer matters for more than background.