While
reading Clarissa and her letters and
the letters of the other characters, I couldn’t help but notice how they are
using the letters to help their relationships grow and develop. For example,
Clarissa and Anna would not be nearly as good of friends if they did not
correspond every day. This led me to think about the contemporary version of
the epistolary forms that I used to help my relationship with my boyfriend
grow. Six years ago, when we first started dating, AOL Instant Messaging (AIM) was
the most popular form of communication besides long phone conversations.
Everyone had a screen name and would sign on immediately after school. Since
then, the epistolary form that has dominated the development of our
relationship has evolved to texting.
As I said, AIM and texting brings relationships closer. One can keep in constant communication with another person and discuss little things going on in one’s life instead of trying to remember when something happens until the next time you see that person. In that way, these forms of communication can just keep going and going without really ending or beginning again. In addition, talking about events through texting or AIM after it happens can allow reflections on what happened to explain why someone might have done what they did.
While writing letters has pretty much
been overcome by technology with the introduction of email and cell phones that
keep us constantly connected to anyone we want, the epistolary form has not
died. I do not think that everyday communication would be possible without some
form of letters being exchanged, no matter how short.
I think a huge part of this post and mention of this modern epistolary form is the idea that when you're engaging in it, it's not the only thing you're doing. I feel like multi-tasking is a huge part of our society and the way we do things, whether we mean to do it or not. Like you mentioned, people text while they do just about everything. The other night I was texting with my Mom while eating dinner and watching a show on television. That sounds crazy now that I've actually typed it out, but it's true! Our society is one that cannot be satisfied with doing just one thing at a time.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone can relate to the 'hopping on AIM right after school' days in some way, but I vividly remember writing letters/notes to my friends in class during school. I would either write them in study hall and slip it into the recipient's locker before the end of the day, or I would write them in class and hand them off at lunch. Exchanging notes with my friends was something we did a lot, and in those notes we would make plans and schedule times to get on AIM to further whatever discussion we were having later that day. I think the letter as a form of exchanging information that will never get old! Who doesn't like a personal, physical, hand written letter every now and then?
While instant messaging can indeed be considered the modern evolution of the epistolary form, I am curious as to whether it retains the same romanticism that physical letters hold or once held. Is there something almost impersonal about such instantaneous exchange? The fact that we can contact someone at any given moment, even while we are engrossed in other pursuits, seems to dilute the potency of the interaction. I usually do not feel any particular excitement in sending or receiving an instant message which thus poses the question of: has an increase in technology and convenience weakened the epistolary form?
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I remain conflicted. It is difficult for me to imagine living in a world wherein swift, reciprocated contact was not guaranteed. Losing internet access for a day or experiencing problems with my phone often makes me feel as though I have been completely severed from the outside world. I then imagine living in a time before modern technology, in which physical letters were the sole form of communication. These letters could take months to arrive to the intended recipients and could be easily lost upon the way. Photographs were also expensive to take and dispatch, so the interaction often had to be a function of text alone. Can you imagine being separated, for years, from a spouse, friend, or family member and having to rely on plain text letters as your sole communication with that person? Surely every letter received would be cherished, and surely our responses would be more more calculated, in depth, and thought provoking compared to the quick exchanges of instant messaging.
There exist both advantages and disadvantages to our modern platforms of communication. One advantage is that we are more often than not assured prompt response as opposed to having to wait a significant period of time. Another is that we can indeed partake in communication while multi-tasking, an essential component of our busy lives (although some would argue that multi-tasking is not really possible, and is in fact, detrimental to our mental capacities). The disadvantages would certainly be the lack of intimacy, excitement, or substance that these short, instantaneous exchanges offer.
Instant messaging like AIM and text messaging are forms of epistolary writing. It lacks in romanticism, because you lose the hard work that goes into writing a well thought out letter, because we can send a message so quickly. Even in this forum, blogspot.com, we are using that of epistolary writing, but just in structured context.As technology grew it was bound to happen that the way we communicated would as well. Letters have grown into emails, text messaging, facebooking, blogging and Instagraming. Technology grows with us, and we are the reason why letters have phased out and other forms of them have replaced them.
ReplyDeleteI think also, in addition with AIM, the responses were almost immediate. Where as letters need to be mailed which allows for days to go by, AIM was instantaneous. You said so yourself that when you got home from school you signed on right away. There was no time for any kind of planning like Lovelace has. Furthermore, it has all turned into shorthand. The feelings behind the words are more likely to be skewed and less thought-out, in opposition to Clarissa's writing.
ReplyDeleteWe are definitely able to communicate a lot faster today with all of the different forms of messaging we use. In Clarissa we see the emotion behind what the characters are writing in their letters rather it be angry, melancholic, happy, and etc, but in the form of messaging we use today are we able to experience the true emotion behind what people are feeling, because the forms we use are so immediate? For example I could send some one a message, and they could take it out of context because of the way I said it which could stir up disagreement or arguments that aren't needed.
ReplyDeleteThis post and comments raise a really important question about how we read and distinguish between epistolary forms and forms of communication. Beth, you rightly point out that "AIM and texting are easy forms of communication that allow you to do whatever you want to while talking to someone." Does the fact that you can do these things while being distracted diminish from the sincerity and importance of what is being said? What do you all think?
ReplyDeleteAlso, as Johanna and Andrea point out, current forms of IM and texting are immediate, and this has a couple of important effects: what is said might be more hasty (you don't have to wait for the next post to take back what you said!), and they might be less cherished because we don't spend as long waiting for them. So I wonder if there is a difference in the way that we respond to and feel about these more immediate forms that is different from how people might have felt about written letters previously. Or is it even possible to measure or apprehend that difference? Is the loss of internet for a day equivalent, in our emotional experiences, to having a loved one's letter lost as is made its way overseas?