The making of meanings with such media must involve some degree of compromise. Complete identity between any specific purpose and the functionality of a medium is likely to be rare, although the degree of match may on most occasions be accepted as adequate. The context of L vi-Strauss's point was a discussion of 'primitive art' and 'mythical thought', but I would argue that bricolage can be involved in the use of any medium, for any purpose. Any 'resistance' offered by the writer's materials can be an intrinsic part of the process of writing. However, not every writer acts or feels like a bricoleur.
Individuals differ strikingly in their responses to the notion of media transformation.
They range from those who insist that they are in total control of the media which they 'use' to those who experience a profound sense of being shaped by the media which 'use' them. The significance of media transformations to those involved depends on resonances deriving from the nature and use of a medium rather than from explicit 'messages'. The term resonance is sometimes used by literary critics to refer to associative 'overtones' or metaphorical significances which they discern in particular uses of language. The comparisons by those involved might be conscious or unconscious, explicit or implicit. For example, resonance could refer to some quality in a particular text which those writing or reading it might regard as 'lost' if it were to be paraphrased.