"They're burning tires in the pits again. I can't see them cause I'm hided, but I can smell them all thick and hot and fiery like pepper and smoke and wet thunderhorses mixed together." From Copper Elephant by Adam Rapp

Sometimes life isn't intense chaos and fear. Sometimes life is small moments: hands holding hands across the dinner table.

My characters are not Adam's characters but I participate in a writing practice as I read his work. Both reading and writing require deep linguistic processing. There is an entire body of study within the field of education studying the reading-writing connection and a few basic hypothesis as to how these two disciplines interact.

First, there is the directional model which suggests that concepts a student discovers in the reading process may be applied to writing, i.e., if I read Adam Rapp prose, I might apply his sophisticated use of language to my own writing. If I focus on nursery rhymes, my writing will reflect this achievement. Therefore, reading quality writing is a must for a writer who wishes to grow her work.

The underlying assumption in the directional model is that reading and writing are separate systems rather than one cohesive whole. Reading skills inform writing like walking skills inform snowboarding prowess, i.e., a good walker doesn't necessarily snowboard well and a handicapped skier might win trophies but isn't a good walker, even though both disciplines involve the lower extremities.

This model is called directional because the transference goes in one direction- from reading to writing. Some theorize it works in the opposite direction. These academics suggest that studying sentence, paragraph and discourse structure aids reading. I think a better name for this theory is The Linear Method.

The second model proposes that transference of information occurs in both directions and is called the nondirectional hypothesis. Whoever came up with these names is void of imagination. Couldn't they at least call the second a partnership?

Because both writing and reading require an "interactive and dynamic activation, instantiation and refinement of schemata" researcher Shanahan reports, "it is possible that instruction in one would lead to improvement in the other."

What I am really interested in is the LATERAL method. As Wikipedia says, "Critical thinking is primarily concerned with judging the truth value of statements and seeking errors. Lateral thinking is more concerned with the movement value of statements and ideas. A person would use lateral thinking when they want to move from one known idea to creating new ideas."

So here is my theory. Well, maybe it isn't my theory. Maybe I read it somewhere but just can't pinpoint it in the World Wide Web. Or maybe I expanded on it. Either way, I am going to have to wing it here because I can't find anything in this moment that backs up my lateral movement to a concept called Readers ARE Writers.

Consider what happens when you read the paragraph above, written by Adam Rapp. Well, I will reprint it to make things easier.

"They're burning tires in the pits again. I can't see them cause I'm hided, but I can smell them all thick and hot and fiery like pepper and smoke and wet thunderhorses mixed together."

When I read this opening paragraph, my imagination kicks into gear and I begin to write a subtext.

I have spent most of the morning searching for abstracts like, "Reading is rocket science" and my intellect is fried so I am going with Wikipedia here, okay? Wikipedia says "Subtext is content of a book, play, musical work, film, video game or television series which is not announced explicitly by the characters (or author) but is implicit or becomes something understood by the observer of the work as the production unfolds."

If it is something understood by the observer, then the observer plays a part in writing this subtext.

Shelly Lowenkopf wrote this poem on the subject:

Subtext

What is said is up here.

What is meant is down here.

Way down. Like about here.

That about sums up my Readers are Writers theory.