Natasha:
The Biography of Natalie Wood
With Suzanne Finstad
Author
Thursday, July 26, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

This year marks twenty years since actress Natalie Wood's mysterious drowning from her yacht off Catalina Island at the age of 43. Author Suzanne Finstad provides a detailed examination of that Thanksgiving weekend when Wood, Robert Wagner and Christopher Walken sailed the "Splendor," culminating in her disappearance. Finstad covers the life of Natasha Zakharenko, from her childhood dominated by a stage mother to becoming a product of the Hollywood studio system and a glamorous star of some classic films (Miracle on 34th Street, The Searchers, Rebel Without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass, West Side Story and Gypsy).

Finstad will be online Thursday, July 26, at 1 p.m. EDT, to discuss the life of Natalie Wood.

Finstad received the Frank Wardlaw Prize for literary excellence for her first book, "Heir Not Apparent." She wrote the bestseller, "Sleeping With the Devil" which she also coproduced as a CBS television movie. She is executive producer of an upcoming ABC film version of "Natasha."

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Deborah Tannen: Hi, I'm Deborah Tannen. I'm happy to have this opportunity to hear directly to you.

Bethesda, Md.: Family relations are based on trust,and love. If one family member does not believe that you trust, respect and love that member, no matter what you say it is always misinterpreted and viewed with different perseption. HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION?

Deborah Tannen: It's true that every family relationship has to start with trust, but even with the best intentions we have to realize that what we intend and what the other person percieves is not always the same. Sometimes the key to improving relationships is trying to understand how what you say might be interpreted by someone else.

Takoma Park, Md.: Dear Dr. Tannen,

If I have your distinction correct... my spouse and I speak "meta-messages" almost exclusively -- NOT GOOD? Where can we go from there? (In simple terms the criticisms run hot and heavy in both directions).

a.f.e. Takoma Park

Deborah Tannen: Let me define it again. The message the word meaning. We usually all agree on that. The meta-message is what I call "the heart meaning." What you think it says about the relationship that someone says these words in this way at this time. So, meta-messages can come from context, tone of voice and the history of the relationship.

Most importantly meta messages are not bad. They're the way communication works. Everything we say is bursting with meta messages. It's only when the meta-message is perceived as negative, or if the message intended and the one interpreted are very different from eachother that there's a problem.

Washington, D.C.: There is a seeming contradiction in two examples on which I'd appreciate your insight. In your essay in yesterday's Outlook section, a husband hears, in a remark his wife has made ("this is recyclable"), an indirect message he believes she is trying to convey, rather than taking the remark literally. I seem to recall from your earlier writing that women do indeed tend to convey messages indirectly but that men tend to hear only the literal, thereby creating a communication gap. Now it sounds as though men might hear the indirect message when they want to. No doubt it's more nuanced than this. Any insights?

Deborah Tannen: Thank you for pointing that out. Many people came away from this with an impression that men are direct, women indirect. That is often the case, especially when it comes to getting people to do what we want. But there are situations where men are likely to be more indirect than women. For example, apologizing, when many men may find many ways to say they're sorry without saying it outright or implying criticism.

We're all indirect at times. A point I make in "You Just DOn't Understand" is when conversational rituals are not shared we may take literally something that was not intended literally.

A man might tease (or women) to imply friendliness and it can be taken literally as an insult. But when it comes to implied criticism we all frequently hide behind the literal meaning so we can say, "I never meant that."

Bethesda, Md.: I'm having serious communication problems with my supervisor at work. Do you think your observations about the ways families communicate are also true for the workplace and can your recommendations be adapted for work relationships? Thank you.

Deborah Tannen: Absolutely. The book I've written about work is called "Talking from 9 to 5." But you can take the insights in this book and apply them to the workplace as well.

Southern Maryland:: I'll quote some of the things my mother said to us while we were growing up. There were four kids in the family -- two girls and two boys. The quotes etched in my brain are: You're not too big to get slapped. Some day I'm going to walk out of here and never come back. I'm going to hit you so hard it will jar your grandmother Just shut up and do as you're told. Get out of bed before I come in there and beat your behind.

Any mysterious hidden meanings in these or is my mother a violent control freak? Now she wonders why we don't come to visit!

Deborah Tannen: I have to admit these are extreme. Not the sort I write about, which are the more subtle ones.

I do have a lot to say about mother/daughter relationships. That's one of the most powerful relationships in the family.

Baltimore, MD: Do you think it is possible to communicate too much with your partner and be too honest? I ask because I always feel compelled to lay all of my cards out on the table for fear of misleading someone, but it usually ends up causing me much more harm than good.

Deborah Tannen: Yes. Sometimes people use the excuse "I'm just being honest" to say things that are critical or disturbing. Again, the key is to try to think how what you say is likely to be perceived by the other person. Your intentions are only half of the exchange. The other half is their reception.

Cochrane, Alberta, Canada: Dear Deborah,

This might be a toughie! My husband and I have been married almost 29 years. I find it very frustrating that I cannot make any comment to my husband (such as the toilet paper roll not being recycled, for example)which might exhibit even the faintest hint of criticism without him reacting SO defensively! He will immediately say I'm challenging his way of doing things, cornering him, or his favorite "I'm not enjoying this conversation" and then leave the room. We have very few topics we can discuss safely and I feel like I am constantly monitoring every word I say so as not to cause a ruckus. This works up to a point, but I find it frustrating, sad and exhausting. Any ideas? Thanks. L.R.A.

Deborah Tannen: This sounds like an extreme case of somethign that goes on in all families. Because we so much want approval and acceptance from our families we overreact to any hint that they find us wanting. Perhaps you could discuss at some quiet moment how he feels about being corrected, but also how it makes you feel that you have to constantly monitor what you're saying.

Another title I considered for this book was "I Can't Even Open My Mouth" and that's the other side of the equation.

Gaithersburg, Md.: How can two people resolve the dilemma in which one person tries to provide helpful suggestions and the other person perceives the suggestions as criticism?

Deborah Tannen: It's quite typical that the person giving suggestions focuses on the caring "I'm trying to help." The one receiving is aware of the meta-message "You need suggestions."

There's no way to ensure that someone will take suggestions as helpful and not critical because criticism is implied in the act of suggesting.

You have to both keep in mind the other perspective. Any suggestion can come accross as criticism and can be a way of showing caring. Perhaps if you're judicious about how often you make suggestions and don't forget to offer praise whenever possible then occasional suggestion might be more likely to be taken in a constructive spirit.

But always the key is talking about it on the meta-message level and acknowledging the other person's perspective.

Washington, D.C.: What is the most effective way for a parent to establish meaningful communication with a teenaged child, given that at that age, most teenagers tend to withdraw from talking to their parents?

Deborah Tannen: How right you are.

One suggestion is rather than sitting them down across from you and askign direct questions, spend time together in which you're focused on something else and see what they volunteer.

Another is, try to listen as much as possible without showing disapproval. Some parents find that if they stop criticising, the behavior gets better rather than worse.

Finally, let them know that you realized how different the world is for them than it was for you and consult them as experts on what the world is like for them.

This might make them more open to your advice and wisdom if they feel you understand their experience.

Baltimore, Md: It may be obvious, but certain meta-messages and alignments occur in periods of stress. Have you looked at this dynamic? Any observations.
What strategies do you suggest to identifying to a spouse or sibling that a meta-message is having a negative response and serious impact, and/or have you had experience with successful interventions on a systematic basis?

Deborah Tannen: FIrst of all, let me say again that meta messages and alignments are present in every conversation. When we agree on what they are we may not notice them and they don't cause trouble. Under stress, people are more likely to react defensively or negatively. An example in the book is (sorry it's toilet paper again). I remember that my first husband once blew up because I put the toilet paper in unfurling from the bottom. I remember being outraged if he wanted the paper put in a certain way all he had to do was tell me (it didn't occur to me at the time that he put it in himself).

Now in retrospect I realize it was silly for me to take literally his concern with toilet paper. I'm sure he didn't mention it when he was calm becuase he didn't care all that much.

So sometimes if you perceive the person is under stress it's best to back off and not engage.

Bethesda/DC: Oh boy do I need your new book! My mother and I have trouble talking on the phone. It's better than it used to be, which was awful, but sometimes the old baggage comes to the fore, and we can't help pushing each other's buttons. Last night, for example, she was depressed, and while I tried to be sympathetic, anything I said was taken as an insult. I wanted to be helpful, but all I got from her was guilt--which just makes me furious--and expressions of her hopelessness. Short of hanging up the phone, what can we do to change the pattern?

Deborah Tannen: I certainly recognize this pattern. Both from many people I have talked to and from my own experience.

Sometimes I have to remind myself to react to my mother the way I described many women prefer from the book "You Just Don't Understand." That is rather than giving her suggestions, I just express sympathy and tell her how sorry I am she feels that way. I get a better reaction.

Something I have only learned recently (my mother is 90) is to tell her when somethign she said makes me feel bad. It's amazing how quickly she backtracks. In this case I talked about the meta-message, rather than arguing on the message level which never seems to do any good.

DC: Ok, so how DO we make sure the meta-messages are taken well/understood correctly?

Deborah Tannen: First of all, you can tell a lot b y the reaction you get. IF you get the one you expect, chances are the meta-message received was similar to the one intend. But if the response catches you off guard that's an indication it was received differently.

Often the best repair is meta-communication. In other words, talk about the communication. Ask the person how they interprested what you said or explain, in other words, how you meant it. But make sure that you don't deny and dismiss a meta-message different from the one you intended. You can clarify and stick to what you intended but still acknowledge that it could have come accross differently.

The most useless conversations are ones where people keep repeating what htye meant or what they heard without acknowledging the other person's persspective and that's what makes it like an unending tape loop. Each one saying the same thing over and over.

Portola Valley, Calif.: Sometimes, in a family or organization, a new pattern of communication is necessary to break up a long-standing dysfunctional pattern. Yet this new pattern may disappointing those who have previously benefited from the old constraints. They may feel disrespected or offended, because the old order of things is ignored. For instance, a boss starts to ask for feedback from people two levels down, in order to confront an ineffective direct report. Or a mother-in-law starts to inquire into the children's well-being and takes a hit for meddling. How can these people explain their interventions in a way that preserves dignity and without backing down?

Deborah Tannen: The situation you describe with the mother in law seems similar to many described in the book. Making suggestions can oftwen be perceived as criticism. The answer may be simply biting your tongue. FOr the one on the receiving end, reframing can allay some anger if you remind yourself that the intention is helpful rather than critical.

As for the problem that some people will always object when you try to change a pattern of communication. That's unavoidable. In the family, talking about the change might be useful. At work, however, you might not want that level of intimacy that is a meta-message communicated by the fact that we're having a heart to heart about ways of communication

You might need to keep the discussion on a more concrete level, "What would you like to see done differently" and then see if those changes can be accomodated.

Chevy Chase, Md.: Don't you think that most folks have mixed emotional motivations for their remarks to loved ones? I could care deeply about my partner's health, but be very angry about their unhealthful behavior. My words and tone would convey this ambivalance. It seems to me that true caring entails thinking of how your comment will sound to the person you're adressing.

Deborah Tannen: You're absolutely right. Perhaps one of the major themes in the book is that meanings and conversation are rarely a matter of either/or. Caring and criticizing often coexist and entail each other. It's similar to another duality I discuss at length: connection and control. We want to be close, but we also want to maintain our freedom. However being close entails a loss of freedom because what one person does affects the other.

Being aware of the simultaneous meanings can make discussions more productive because you don't have to deny the other person's perspective in order to argue your own.

Takoma Park, Md.: Your article in today's Post finally articulated for me why simple statements can often lead to intense arguements and hurt feelings. I am baffled, however, why a family member believes it is okay to verbalize his thoughts sometimes in such a directly, critical manner? As in the article, the quote "when you wear that dress, you look like a house," is mean-spirited. I had a long-term partner who sometimes made statements like this. I once responded by saying I knew he would never speak this way to his closest friends, he responded stating, "That's right. But this is how most husbands and wives talk to each other and it's fine; "it doesn't mean anything."

And he ended with a very male statement, saying I (female) am too senstive.

Yes, I am sensitive -- I am a human being who has feelings, and this style of talking hurts me deeply because, in my belief system, it is grossly disrespectful. Am I, in fact, too sensitive? Do I need to take this type of statement "with a grain of salt?" And, finally, would it be problematic or a waste of energy and emotion to try to teach a loved one to control this style of language?

I intend to read your knew book and, hopefully, will learn more about my own role in this fascinating dilemma. Thank you.

Deborah Tannen: I love your question. I wish I had two hours to talk about it.

So many of my books have as a theme that different people have different conversation styles. It varies not only by gender, but ethnic background, regional background, class background, etc.

For many, it is the case that those that love eachother can speak directly. That sends a meta-message of caring.

For others, being close means you would never verbalize something in an indelicate way if it would hurt someone's feelings. I don't think this is about right and wrong, but different conversational styles.

Once we understand this, we can maintain the integrity of our response without denying the integrity of someone's intentions. The book in which I discuss this at length is "That's Not What I Meant."

Fairfax, VA: You once mentioned that you are moderately
hearing impaired. I wonder if you could give
us instances of communication problems faced
by hearing imipaired people who don't
understand metamessaging and alignm

Deborah Tannen: That's an interesting question. I often thought I became more sensitive to meta-messages and other unstated aspects of communication precisely because of my hearing impairment, so I had to be attuned to other nonverbal signs as well as tone of voice, facial expression, etc...

I don't think hearing impairment in itself leads to less understanding of alignment or meta messages. I have however been told by members of the deaf community that the norm leans more toward directness than is common in the hearing community. Therefore, they sometimes need to make appropriate adjustments when talking to hearing people.

   |      |