Thaius said:
Living Contradiction said:
Thaius said:
-snippity snip-
I never said the text had to be simple. I'm fully aware of the tone and emphasis given to text by things like boldface and italic font styles. That is part of it all, an integral part of text communication (on the computer, at least: not quite so much in handwritten text). Sorry, I thought that was inherently included in what I was saying.
Pictures can of course add meaning as well, but this is fully possible on the computer (even with videos and sound bytes, or simple programs), via attachments (the less creative and effective way, for sure), embedding, or even the e-cards you mentioned.
I do see what you're saying about the kiss, but if its only purpose is to communicate that the sender would kiss the receiver if it were possible, I know plenty of people who could communicate that in writing in poetic and beautiful ways that would take your breath away. Even without that, though, it's easy to communicate it through words, or a picture of a lipstick kiss or something: either way, the message is received, and it means the same thing regardless of how it was communicated. I still see no real added meaning to a handwritten letter, even with pictures or kisses. All those things communicate something, something that can be communicated just as effectively, and even as romantically, as a handwritten letter with pictures and kisses.
Your arguments are well written and well thought out, but I'm still not seeing it.
Thank you, Thaius. You've been patient in clarifying your position and I appreciate that. Hopefully, this posting will clear up my argument.
What I'm trying to refute is something that you stated in your initial argument...
...in the case of a letter, your words are what matters. To ascribe importance on any other aspect of it is frivolous and stupid...
...and I think I've managed to succeed in coaxing you into admitting that visual communication is considerably more than just words. Your argument goes well beyond that though. You have stated (yes, I'm paraphrasing) that email and letters are equivalent in all ways visual (that is to say, the text can be modified in any way, visual stimuli other than text are possible, etc.) and that, because of that, letters are obsolete and an indication of mild cultural masochism which is interpreted as possessing value simply for its own sake.
I agree that, visually, emails and letters are equivalent. But it isn't a desire to suffer that causes a letter to be handwritten; It is intimacy.
By and large, the human culture puts a good deal of stock in intimacy, in sharing of feeling and experience of a private nature. It's why we collect things, keep items that may not have inherent value in and of themselves, but which contain emotional resonance of an intimate feeling or experience for us. We keep theatre ticket stubs to remember the thrill of a first date. We keep a hand print ashtray that was a gift from a young relative, even if we don't smoke, to remember that relative's pride and sense of accomplishment. We keep a letter written from a dear friend while she was in a foreign country, complete with the envelope it came in, to remember that person, frozen in time. These are our artifacts, our touchstones, things that remind us of ourselves and those who touched our lives and they are all intimate.
This is not to say that email cannot be intimate or cannot contain intimate information, but it is intimacy on a different scale. With email, the intimacy has to pass through a filter: the filter of the visual. If it isn't visual, it can't get into an email. Letters have more sensual impact than that, embracing the tactile and the nasal senses with the feel and scent of the paper and ink.
And no, printers cannot match this. Even the most cutting edge printer, armed with the very finest of inks and papers, cannot duplicate a person's handwriting without the handwritten text already existing (in which case, why not just put it in an envelope?) or second guess a sender's choice of writing implement and stationary. It could be argued that email can include aural (sound) attachments but so can letters and, in both cases, additional technology is needed to bring the sound into perceivable range, so call that a draw.
This extra sensual capacity sets letters apart from email and makes them intimate to us in a way that email cannot, at present, match. A letter's intimacy is not inherently superior to an email's, any more than someone who is physically strong but intellectually weak is inherently superior to a physically weak but intellectually strong person. It is merely different and as such one can be preferred over the other without denigrating the other.
So there you have it: A deconstruction of what sets email and letters apart and why, while they may resemble each other considerably in form and function, they really are two different means of communication. Maybe one day email will be able to mirror letters as far as sensory and intimate value goes but somehow, I can't picture that happening. Since the creation of the printing press, technology has changed the way we look at letters and they're still here. They survived the advent of the typewriter, the telegram, and, yes, email. Not because they are tidier or faster, but because they go beyond the visual to reach their audience through other sensual communication and to exist as intimate artifacts of our lives.
. It's just lovely!
