In an advertisement which Heineken,
put out a few years ago as part of a themed advertising campaign, it ran a
series of ads where a person or part of a person was lifeless, but became
reinvigorated when he or she concerned drank a can of Heineken. The slogan ‘Heineken Refreshes the Parts Other Beers Cannot Reach!’ was
displayed.
Later in the series of ads they had one where William Wordsworth is trying to compose his famous poem about daffodils. He is pictured sitting by the side of a lake trying, again and again, to write the poem, but always failing to get started. Then he drinks a can of Heineken which he has brought with him and the poem just pours out of the end of his pen: I wander’d lonely as a Cloud …….. and so on.
And the slogan? Heineken Refreshes the Poets Other Beers Cannot Reach!
Later in the series of ads they had one where William Wordsworth is trying to compose his famous poem about daffodils. He is pictured sitting by the side of a lake trying, again and again, to write the poem, but always failing to get started. Then he drinks a can of Heineken which he has brought with him and the poem just pours out of the end of his pen: I wander’d lonely as a Cloud …….. and so on.
And the slogan? Heineken Refreshes the Poets Other Beers Cannot Reach!
The pun is obvious enough. It
takes a special kind of understanding to appreciate the kind of language used
in ads, poetry, drama and discourse.
‘Meaning between the
lines', or what the famous 20th century Russian director Stanislawski called
the 'sub-text' of plays is something which is often not made explicit, but can
be inferred in conversational exchanges. Meaning is essentially produced
by the reader, does not reside within the text itself, and is derived from a
combination of factors including the formal structure of the text and the
contextual circumstances in which it is read. Meaning is plural, not always
fixed but is fluid and cannot be pinned down once and for all through a process
of analysis.
I think reading-between-the-lines would be more prominent in a conversation. I would be curious to know what percentage it would take up. A-priori knowledge, context references and general experience in a certain environment would definitely give two people more and more opportunity to talk and refer-between-the-lines. Take for example an office where this can be so easily found (meetings, anyone?!).
ReplyDeleteWriting so as to convey meaning between words and lines would be much more difficult. No wonder there are so few writers that can bring about more meaning with every line they write. Or is it?! In a weird but quite a relevant way, the reader too needs to be at a certain wavelength with the writer's thoughts and frame of mind. Is that the reason why we all have our "favourite" authors?! Because we understand them better?!
Or is it possible for a writer to bring the reader on to his way of thinking and take him along his journey? I think, that would be a mark of a very accomplished writer indeed! In that case, his meanings, interpretations and references with and without words, would be still lapped up by a reader with gusto!
What's with literary freedom then?! (Now that would be reading between the lines!)
Very interesting. Thanks!!