The Genius of OPVL in Closing the Understanding Gap Between Authors and Readers

What the author intends and what the reader understands is not the same. This is due to language’s inability to fully convey what an individual is thinking. Hence, analysis of text can never fully grasp the meaning of a document. These differences and inaccuracies may cause one to question the validity of historical analysis such as the OPVL. OPVL provides a structure for pulling meaning from historical texts. However, with the writer to reader gap, one wonders if the found purpose and value could ever be close to accurate, and if taking the time to analyze in this manner is worth the effort at all. Thankfully, most historical documents can be placed in context with others like them, allowing us to look at texts on the same subject to see if what we pull from one contains similarities to the rest. If not, the author most likely did not intend for the message received from said document. Context allows for us to avoid the gap stretching too far by allowing us to look for patterns that ensure our analysis makes sense with history. The OPVL method contains checks for both purpose and value. Accounting for the origin of the document gives hints as to the purpose. For example, a letter written by Abigail Adams probably would not be trying to convince the general public of women’s inferiority. Additionally, accounting for limitations makes sure that the values pulled from the text are not skewed by bias or inaccuracy. Overall, the OPVL’s system of internal checks and balances closes much of the author to reader gap by ensuring that the textual analysis is valid and put into context, thus making the analysis of historical documents definitely worth out time.