"Witty" characters, can they be roleplayed by the dumb?

[Verad]

Once again, wit is actually very easy. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread that seems to think otherwise, but it is irrelevant.

[Ignacius]

Once again, wit is actually very easy. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread that seems to think otherwise, but it is irrelevant.

 

Wit, at least real wit, isn't easy.  Real wit is relevant to the discussion being had, and it's cooked up on the fly.  That's relatively hard for most people to do consistently, even with the time granted by RP post-lapse to do.

 

I don't doubt you think it's very easy, but believe me, you don't have to see people bombing too often to realize it's not universal.  Granted, it's also something you have to exercise, so people used to writing conversationally, rather than in isolation, tend to develop that a bit better.  It's not easy for everyone, though.  Most people can only think of a really good comeback after a few hours (I think Ed Byrne did a bit on that).

 

Just recognize that, yeah, some people can't really do it.  They're not bad writers, they're not necessarily humorless, and they can be very entertaining.  However, some people just can't turn a phrase or cast off a decent one-liner that references the spot.  And it's hard for quite a few people to fake.

 

For some people, it does come very naturally.  If you're one of those people, be thankful.

[Verad]

Once again, wit is actually very easy. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread that seems to think otherwise, but it is irrelevant.

 

Wit, at least real wit, isn't easy.  Real wit is relevant to the discussion being had, and it's cooked up on the fly.  That's relatively hard for most people to do consistently, even with the time granted by RP post-lapse to do.

 

Much easier than one might think! All it requires is a healthy dose of snobbery and classism.

[Oli!]

I think we're getting into Thinly Veiled Insults territory again.

[Desu Nee]

Yep. We really went thinly veiled insults.

[Verad]

I think we're getting into Thinly Veiled Insults territory again.

 

The notion of real wit is a classist one. It presumes a certain style of speaking and a form of quick response that was most easily accessible in the past to those with certain educational and financial opportunities. 

 

In this we need to think of wit as distinct from humor, because even if we hold the idea of "Do those around the speaker find him/her to be witty," then this man:

 

 

Is very witty to a significant portion of the population if we don't make that distinction.

[Ignacius]

I think we're getting into Thinly Veiled Insults territory again.

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Once again, wit is actually very easy. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread that seems to think otherwise, but it is irrelevant.

 

Wit, at least real wit, isn't easy.  Real wit is relevant to the discussion being had, and it's cooked up on the fly.  That's relatively hard for most people to do consistently, even with the time granted by RP post-lapse to do.

 

Much easier than one might think! All it requires is a healthy dose of snobbery and classism.

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

[Oli!]

I think we're getting into Thinly Veiled Insults territory again.

 

The notion of real wit is a classist one. It presumes a certain style of speaking and a form of quick response that was most easily accessible in the past to those with certain educational and financial opportunities. 

 

In this we need to think of wit as distinct from humor, because even if we hold the idea of "Do those around the speaker find him/her to be witty," then this man:

 

 

Is very witty to a significant portion of the population if we don't make that distinction.

 

 

 

I dunno, this seems like a sudden and unnecessary leap to me.

 

I think it's pretty well established throughout the thread that we're talking about this wit.

[Verad]

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

 

Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine. 

 

As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.

[Verad]

 

 

I dunno, this seems like a sudden and unnecessary leap to me.

 

I think it's pretty well established throughout the thread that we're talking about this wit.

 

Yes! And that wit is a snobby wit.

[Oli!]

 

 

I dunno, this seems like a sudden and unnecessary leap to me.

 

I think it's pretty well established throughout the thread that we're talking about this wit.

 

Yes! And that wit is a snobby wit.

 

I don't really see snobbyness anywhere in there, though.

 

Intelligence, yes, but intelligence belonging solely to the upper class is neither universal historically, nor implied in this thread, I don't think.

[Telluride]

 

 

I dunno, this seems like a sudden and unnecessary leap to me.

 

I think it's pretty well established throughout the thread that we're talking about this wit.

 

Yes! And that wit is a snobby wit.

 

I don't really see snobbyness anywhere in there, though.

 

Intelligence, yes, but intelligence belonging solely to the upper class is neither universal historically, nor implied in this thread, I don't think.

 

If brevity is the soul of wit, then perhaps we've already seen this thread at our wit's end.

 

Bonus thought: shouldn't the original quote have been, "Brevity is wit's soul?"

[Verad]

 

I don't really see snobbyness anywhere in there, though.

 

Intelligence, yes, but intelligence belonging solely to the upper class is neither universal historically, nor implied in this thread, I don't think.

 

Another similarly murky, culturally-defined term, that. The fact that a distinction has been made in this thread between technical proficiency and intelligence is just one facet of how vague it can be.

 

But to get to the point: All you really need to do to be seen as a wit in RP is portray your wit with sufficient authority that when it's well-received, it's seen as intelligent, and when it isn't, it's seen as pretentious snobbery.

[Verad]

 

If brevity is the soul of wit, then perhaps we've already seen this thread at our wit's end.

 

Bonus thought: shouldn't the original quote have been, "Brevity is wit's soul?"

 

It would have been a lie from an idiot who died behind a tapestry in either case.

[Oli!]

 

I don't really see snobbyness anywhere in there, though.

 

Intelligence, yes, but intelligence belonging solely to the upper class is neither universal historically, nor implied in this thread, I don't think.

 

Another similarly murky, culturally-defined term, that. The fact that a distinction has been made in this thread between technical proficiency and intelligence is just one facet of how vague it can be.

 

But to get to the point: All you really need to do to be seen as a wit in RP is portray your wit with sufficient authority that when it's well-received, it's seen as intelligent, and when it isn't, it's seen as pretentious snobbery.

 

 

That leaves out the other bit that people were hoping to get at here, namely being funny. Wit includes humor, after all. Being the target of condescension is very rarely funny, and although it can be, it seems that that formula would be more miss than hit to many.

[Ignacius]

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

 

Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine. 

 

As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.  I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time.  With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent.  We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

 

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education.  Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty.  Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is.  Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

 

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days.  And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right.  Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed.  They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

 

That's not as easy as you might think it is.  Hence the line I drawled about time.  Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine.  It's not as easy as you might think it is.  Some people really have a hard time with it.

[Telluride]

 

If brevity is the soul of wit, then perhaps we've already seen this thread at our wit's end.

 

Bonus thought: shouldn't the original quote have been, "Brevity is wit's soul?"

 

It would have been a lie from an idiot who died behind a tapestry in either case.

 

Your point, as was the one that killed him, is quite solid.

[Oli!]

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

 

Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine. 

 

As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.

 

Off-topic I guess, but again, not quite correct. This was not the case in all cultures, and in fact, was mostly the case in Europe. Tribal societies schooled all their members in what was known, and in their history, local geography, culture, etcetera. China practically invented the standardized test for the sake of admitting government officials for employment and further education (though whether or not it was aimed at the masses or the few varied by dynasty). The Aztecs implemented mandatory schooling for all over the age of 15. These are just a few examples.

 

Intelligence, wit, and education aren't class-specific all the time, everywhere. It varies greatly, and it might help our view of this topic as a whole to stop viewing it strictly through that lens.

[Verad]

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

 

Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine. 

 

As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.

 

Off-topic I guess, but again, not quite correct. This was not the case in all cultures, and in fact, was mostly the case in Europe. Tribal societies schooled all their members in what was known, and in their history, local geography, culture, etcetera. China practically invented the standardized test for the sake of admitting government officials for employment and further education (though whether or not it was aimed at the masses or the few varied by dynasty). The Aztecs implemented mandatory schooling for all over the age of 15. These are just a few examples.

 

Intelligence, wit, and education aren't class-specific all the time, everywhere. It varies greatly, and it might help our view of this topic as a whole to stop viewing it strictly through that lens.

 

 

This is quite true, and I thank you for pointing it out. To clarify, when I'm speaking of wit, I'm speaking primarily in the British and American contexts.

 

That said, I think your point can lead to another - there is no real "wit," in this case, because wit is a culturally defined concept. The idea that speaking with a quick retort is a marker of intelligence may hold no weight in a culture where that's considered to be a marker of thoughtlessness. In this view, being witty in RP is simple: You already are, to somebody. It even dovetails nicely with the idea that wittiness is based on reception.

[Oli!]

 

That said, I think your point can lead to another - there is no real "wit," in this case, because wit is a culturally defined concept. The idea that speaking with a quick retort is a marker of intelligence may hold no weight in a culture where that's considered to be a marker of thoughtlessness. In this view, being witty in RP is simple: You already are, to somebody. It even dovetails nicely with the idea that wittiness is based on reception.

 

 

This is fair, and also the stance that I've held from the beginning (meaning the post I made when I jumped in here, like a page or two ago). I still maintain that the simplest answer to the thread's stated question is that if you have the capability to be "witty," however that is defined on an individual level, then yes, your character can be witty. The inverse is also true; if you are unable to be whatever you consider to be "witty," then your character cannot be, because you cannot emulate something that is foreign to you.

 

The idea of what is witty and what is not is something entirely subjective and inarguable because it is not a definite truth. As a result, I would actually go so far to say that that argument is a complete distraction from the thread's question.

 

 

 

My first post, for the sake of completeness, I guess:

 

 

 

 

Outside of just saying that a character Said a Witty Thing, the answer would be No, if you're not capable of constructing something that is witty.

 

This assumes some sort of absolute wittiness, but the same thing is true for all facets of a character, like it or not.

 

You could debate whether or not things are truly witty, or truly smart, or whatever else, of course. But whatever you personally define as witty / smart / whatever trait you want, is only achievable if you, too, are capable of constructing that behind the keyboard. You can always state narratively that your character says Something if you can't make them say that yourself, however, though writing-wise, this will fall flat for most people even if the character would be true to themselves regardless.

 

An easy way to see this would be to play a character that is a mathematician, as they work in a field which does have a sort of absolute correctness in most cases. If you can't do the math that your character is supposed to be doing, then it's very clear that you can't "play" a mathematician. Sure, you could get people that are mathematicians to help you out, or vaguely say that they are Doing Math, but if you are incapable of grasping or understanding that facet of a character, then you won't be able to play them to the fullest extent of their characterization.

 

So, individual reflections on what is or isn't reflective of various traits on a specific level aside, this is the answer to your question.

 

 

 

[Ignacius]

I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine!  I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried.  The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge.  I think the better response is:

 

Oh God, but who has time for them?

 

Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine. 

 

As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.

 

Off-topic I guess, but again, not quite correct. This was not the case in all cultures, and in fact, was mostly the case in Europe. Tribal societies schooled all their members in what was known, and in their history, local geography, culture, etcetera. China practically invented the standardized test for the sake of admitting government officials for employment and further education (though whether or not it was aimed at the masses or the few varied by dynasty). The Aztecs implemented mandatory schooling for all over the age of 15. These are just a few examples.

 

Intelligence, wit, and education aren't class-specific all the time, everywhere. It varies greatly, and it might help our view of this topic as a whole to stop viewing it strictly through that lens.

 

 

This is quite true, and I thank you for pointing it out. To clarify, when I'm speaking of wit, I'm speaking primarily in the British and American contexts.

 

That said, I think your point can lead to another - there is no real "wit," in this case, because wit is a culturally defined concept. The idea that speaking with a quick retort is a marker of intelligence may hold no weight in a culture where that's considered to be a marker of thoughtlessness. In this view, being witty in RP is simple: You already are, to somebody. It even dovetails nicely with the idea that wittiness is based on reception.

 

Which would be fine, except, as the OP has expressed, we aren't talking about someone's reaction to their own wit.  The idea is whether someone who isn't possessed of it, in the view of anyone, can force that view on the audience by saying their character is "witty".  Which, yes, happens.  If you think you're witty, and all you're doing is interjecting relatively dull and not particularly enjoyable observations, you will most likely get downplayed or frozen out of conversation.  Which is a particular problem for people who want to play a genius, but will routinely have other players running circles around their best-applied logic in conversation.

 

You can think you're as witty as you'd like, or quantify it however you want, but the aim of RP is to publicly air that wit, and therefore it has to be received by the audience.  And if you fail, you fail.  If one person is fine with it, but nine people roundly think you're just trolling the conversation, you've made a pretty grievous error.

 

The problem is that most people who try to punch above their weight aren't recognized at failing to be witty, they're labeled trolls and discarded.  We don't even think about them again, they were just people who dropped into conversation being crass, crude, and not particularly enjoyable company.  Nobody is going to reverse that opinion because the character is meant to be written as a genius when the character, because of the player, pretty clearly isn't.

[Verad]

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.  I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time.  With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent.  We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

 

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education.  Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty.  Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is.  Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

 

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days.  And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right.  Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed.  They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

 

That's not as easy as you might think it is.  Hence the line I drawled about time.  Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine.  It's not as easy as you might think it is.  Some people really have a hard time with it.

 

We have no lower-class zingers because people chose not to record them as much as they couldn't be recorded. Their speech was low, and to be corrected, because it lacked the linguistic markers of upper-class wit. They might have referred to vulgarity directly, rather than obliquely; their wordplay might have lacked the appropriate grammatical structures to be worth recording (a serious concern in 19th century Britain in particular, where correct speech is seen as a marker of moral character) or it might have been accidental. What value, then, was there in recording them?

 

Now this is admittedly much more true for Britain than for the United States, where it's possible to have a "folksy" wit and the lower-classes, or the rural ones anyway, are seen as respectable in their own right. But a lot of our markers for witty speech come both from the educational opportunities for the upper classes and how they policed what speech was considered intelligent. That we perceive wit as a sign of raw intelligence rather than education is a holdover from that period.

 

Knowing that the notion of wit in the modern day is an accident of history and culture, why are we telling people they can't be witty instead of questioning our own perceptions of wit?

[Verad]

 

Which would be fine, except, as the OP has expressed, we aren't talking about someone's reaction to their own wit.  The idea is whether someone who isn't possessed of it, in the view of anyone, can force that view on the audience by saying their character is "witty".  Which, yes, happens.  If you think you're witty, and all you're doing is interjecting relatively dull and not particularly enjoyable observations, you will most likely get downplayed or frozen out of conversation.  Which is a particular problem for people who want to play a genius, but will routinely have other players running circles around their best-applied logic in conversation.

 

I question the assumption, knowing that wit is culturally determined, that it is possible for somebody to be universally regarded as lacking in wit.

[Ignacius]

 

Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob.  Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.  I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time.  With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent.  We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

 

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education.  Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty.  Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is.  Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

 

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days.  And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right.  Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed.  They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

 

That's not as easy as you might think it is.  Hence the line I drawled about time.  Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine.  It's not as easy as you might think it is.  Some people really have a hard time with it.

 

We have no lower-class zingers because people chose not to record them as much as they couldn't be recorded. Their speech was low, and to be corrected, because it lacked the linguistic markers of upper-class wit. They might have referred to vulgarity directly, rather than obliquely; their wordplay might have lacked the appropriate grammatical structures to be worth recording (a serious concern in 19th century Britain in particular, where correct speech is seen as a marker of moral character) or it might have been accidental. What value, then, was there in recording them?

 

Now this is admittedly much more true for Britain than for the United States, where it's possible to have a "folksy" wit and the lower-classes, or the rural ones anyway, are seen as respectable in their own right. But a lot of our markers for witty speech come both from the educational opportunities for the upper classes and how they policed what speech was considered intelligent. That we perceive wit as a sign of raw intelligence rather than education is a holdover from that period.

 

Knowing that the notion of wit in the modern day is an accident of history and culture, why are we telling people they can't be witty instead of questioning our own perceptions of wit?

 

Because wit isn't inflicted, it's received.  Lower class wit, just because no one recorded it, didn't suddenly cease to exist.  It had nothing to do with proper speech, even in England (especially because the nobles and countrymen weren't even speaking the same language).  If my friend turns to me and says something witty about a local building commission, his wit didn't just vanish or never exist, his wit just wasn't recorded for everyone to hear.

 

So it's existed since the dawn of complex conversation.  It was certainly already happening, pretty much in the form we receive it as today, in ancient Greece (which is where we got the tradition).

 

And when you say you want your character to be witty, as per the OP, you're writing towards that standard.  And when you fail, it isn't a matter of just broadening our horizons to make "lol u dum" a superlative repartee considering the writers' perceived education, either it resonates or it doesn't.  And when it doesn't, and someone keeps pushing it, of course people are going to call it trolling.  They'll OOCly tell this guy to stop, that they're trying to RP, that interrupting them to troll them isn't funny.  And they won't care whether that player is trying as hard as he can or actually is trolling them because they can't judge the writer, just the effect.

 

However, as you can see, that effect clearly depends largely on the writer's ability.  If he thinks he knocked it out of the park and everyone else found him boorish, he's not witty any more than I'm six feet tall.  He just doesn't understand the effect as it's received.  If people thought he was intelligent, but unlikable, they're likely to RP with him figuring he's being played straight up.  If he doesn't sound intelligent but wants to, he's not meeting his goal.

 

And, again, the issue is whether we should say he's witty as long as he's intending it to be read that way.  Can you, essentially, meta in subjective conversational perception.  I'd say no, not in an open social context.  You can only shoot for the top and understand if you can't make the bar you set that it isn't the audience's fault.

[111]

Bit of a tangent, but to respond above, we do actually have records of 'lower class' wit, and they've been recorded through the ages.

 

For example the Miller's tale by Chaucer is about as low-brow as it gets. A guy kisses someone's butt, gets farted on, and then sticks a iron poker up it. 

 

This Nicholas just then let fly a fart

As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,

 And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;

But he was ready with his iron hot

And Nicholas right in the arse he got.

     Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,

The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,

That for the pain he thought that he should die.

And like one mad he started in to cry,

"Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!"

 

 

The Graffiti of Pompeii also has good examples:

 

http://classicalwisdom.com/dirty-world-ancient-graffiti/

 

“The one who buggers a fire burns his penis.”

 

 

Or the poetic dissing of the Romans, this one starts off with 'I will sodomize and face fuck you' 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

 

No doubt someone got a kick out of it, or it wouldn't have been written down.