Changing Aesthetics of Reading
When thinking about the invention of the printing press, it is difficult to find fault with such a revolutionary creation. The printing press was a less expensive, more accurate, and quicker way of producing books, than writing them all by hand. This invention changed the way readers related to text by homogenizing books, making them more formal and impersonal.
Plato’s feared that “those who use writing will become forgetful” and felt that “writing weakens the mind” (Ong, p. 105). I disagree. For many people, including myself, writing something down helps strength the idea in my brain, and I am more likely to remember it later. Since we are such a visual culture, I believe for the majority of people, writing allows us to hold onto ideas that we otherwise might forget, and work through ideas or concepts that we may be struggling to solve or make sense of in our heads.
While communication through printed or typed text may be faster and more efficient, there is something about receiving a hand written note, letter or card that makes the reader feel more connected to the author. Part of this connection is that these handwritten letters or notes are often personalized and tailored to the individual reader. In addition, the handwriting or printing of the letter is specific to the writer, and all these little extra details, combined with the time and effort it took to compose the piece of writing, is valuable and usually very much appreciated by the reader. I would assume that books written by hand (as opposed to being printed) evoked these same feelings. With the invention of the printing press, books may have lost that personal, connected feeling with their readers, as each book was created exactly the same: “the lines perfectly regular, all justified on the right side, everything coming out even visually, and without the aid of the guidelines or ruled borders that often occur in manuscripts. This is an insistent world of cold, nonhuman, facts” (Ong, p. 144).
Interestingly enough, in Bolter’s Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2001), he states that in the early popularity of print, people viewed written text as an “unchanging artefact… a monument to its author and its age” and that there was in fact a larger gap between author and reader. This surprised me as I would have thought that readers of handcrafted books felt closer to the author for the above-mentioned reasons; however, Bolter mentions that it is not until the later age of print that people seemed to be more impressed by the variability and temporariness of text.
Perhaps it is the notion that printed text provides “facts” and oral manuscripts provide “reflections” (Ong, p. 156), that make printed books feel less personal than those that were handcrafted. Perhaps it is because I can appreciate the time and effort people put into creating these books by hand. Now I am not sure if I would enjoy reading an entire handcrafted book cover to cover, but for me personally, I will always prefer a handcrafted card or letter over a printed copy (or email).
References
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.
Image:
Indrehus, K. (2008) Grandma’s old receipt book. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/romling/2357763451
Hi Kara,
You state, “While communication through printed or typed text may be faster and more efficient, there is something about receiving a hand written note, letter or card that makes the reader feel more connected to the author. ” What impact do you think texting and email has on this sense of connectedness that people feel with a handwritten note? Would you agree that digital communication effectively puts people at arm’s length so that the messiness of face to face communication is eliminated? Sherry Turkle (2012) discusses this issue in her TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=en) and publications how we are definitely more connected to others but at what cost? We are together but not together. Digital communication allows us more control over that we ‘say’, lets us “present the self as we want to be. We get to edit, and that means we get to delete, and that means we get to retouch, the face, the voice, the flesh, the body”” (6:22). This digital control reflects much of what occurs in society on a general level, particularly in visual media where every photo we see has been retouched to show us how society believes we should look. Digital communication offers so much control over what we share that our true humanity is effectively glossed over. We are so used to seeing this stylized version of ourselves in media that when we actually encounter someone or something that has not been photoshopped or edited we are shocked. But I digress.
While my children were in grade school there was talk of no longer teaching handwriting as it was considered a skill that was no longer useful. I don’t know where schools are on this issue today but could we be heading for a pen and paperless existence? I find this unsettling, but maybe that is because I still use a pen a good portion of the time to write. I actually enjoy the physical act of writing. My children don’t do nearly as much pen and paper writing as I do but it is difficult to identify a cause-effect here. However, they definitely do not ‘talk’ on the phone as much. If fact they shy away from having a telephone conversation, even with their friends. I don’t think this reluctance is unfounded in some ways because how often do you actually get a human being on the other end of the phone when you do call?
You also mentioned how writing something down helps one to consolidate and remember the information better. Do you think this is still the case if we were to type information and not physically write it? I wonder if there is something about the act of writing itself that cements information in the brain and if typing would accomplish the same thing.
Turkle, S. (2012). Connected, but alone? [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together/transcript?language=en
Hi Kara and Susan,
Kara, I agree whole-heartedly with you about the feeling of receiving a handwritten letter versus a typed letter. Even just knowing that the person took the time to write to me in particular and not a generic-photocopied-Christmas-letter makes me feel loved and cared for, and honestly makes me want to write back!
Susan, you posed a question regarding whether we are more likely to remember information that we have written as opposed to typed. Personally, I am torn. I used to be a ‘write-to-remember’ person all through my schooling – I actually kept all of my personal planners from grade school and university! If an event/due date/birthday was not written down, it would not happen. Since my switch to digital calendars, I am the same way, except that I do not rely on my physical writing of the deed in order to remember it. I simply relied on my calendar one way or the other. This makes me believe that I require a visual of some kind in order to remember particular information, and the mode by which I document the visual does not matter to me.
Having said that, I have become so accustomed to typing my assignments, research papers, blog posts, etc. that if I were asked to instead write I don’t believe I would be as successful. The only difference, I find, between typing my thoughts and writing my thoughts is speed! I would say I am a fast writer, but I am an ever faster typer (thanks Mavis Beacon!). To be able to type almost as fast as my thoughts helps me to form coherent passages as well as not forget my intended direction.
Nonetheless, my internal argument of handwriting vs. typing is still at an impasse, since I still compose handwritten lists of the papers and due dates for each of the courses I take. It’s sitting right next to my laptop right now. t’s not enough to have a typed file; I need to be able to look over at it, edit it, and check off my step-by-step accomplishments. I suppose something is to be said for the aesthetics of my own, handwritten, to-do list, and somehow I don’t think that will ever change.
Emily
Hi Kara,
First of all, your choice of image featuring a wonderful antique Norwegian handwritten recipe book immediately grabbed my attention and connected me to my Norwegian ancestry! Without a doubt, for me, this simple reproduction of a handwritten text speaks to my heart and proves your point that something handwritten by the author makes the reader feel more connected.
With the advent of Gutenberg’s press, nobility was slow to embrace the changes brought about by mass printing methods. The elite did not want everyone to have access to books, and thought that mass production methods cheapened books. Additionally, access to printed material shifted the balance of power from a select few to the general population.
As an elementary teacher now, I still teach and witness the teaching of handwriting by many teachers, and have a strong belief that the physicality of writing by hand stimulates important parts of the brain. I also happily compose both with pen as well as with computer. I wonder how time will treat our manifestations of communication artifacts such as e-mails and texts and snap chats. I still treasure my grandmother’s handwritten recipes and letters from relatives now long gone. I couldn’t say whether or not I will retain any semblance of connection to a single electronic text I have received during the past 5 years. Will there be any trace of those e-texts just a few short years from now?
In contrast, however, I maintain a larger circle of connections, with relatives living in Europe, and throughout N. America via Facebook, e-mails and online photo sharing. And those connections would more than likely not occur as regularly without the internet. So for today’s technological communication advances, I am truly grateful.
Thank you for a thoughtful post!
Sandra