On-line, there is a different presentation of the article and involves a different author (it includes images of the actual hand-written cards) and includes the author's, Kristina Budelis's, observation:
Reading someone’s handwriting can be incredibly intimate and revealing, perhaps especially in an age of e-mail and texting. The confines of font streamline and depersonalize emotionality, in contrast with the romance of thoughtful script or the tragic desperation of slanted scrawls.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2010/09/barthess-hand.html#ixzz0zBBFSLHB
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2010/09/barthess-hand.html#ixzz0zBBFSLHB
I find a connection to Manovich's investigation of Vertov's search for a visual Esperanto in the observation that "the confines of font streamline...emotionality." I take this to mean that emotion becomes less complex and easier to convey through the (traditionally) static mode of type-written words, which allows for a more direct (or "streamlined") connection between writer and reader. To restate: a standardized mode (such as font) "streamlines" the text as a connection between writer and reader in the writer-text-reader construct of rhetorical analysis.
Very interesting idea. It interests me that type could be streamlining for the purpose of rhetorical analysis, but I also find that for other purposes, being able to judge the handwriting could be an important factor. I guess I, as someone who is not in the rhetorical composition program, have to question the purpose of examining the writing. If I just want to see the way the words work together, then yes, streamline, but if I want to go deeper into the soul or mind of the writer (as a literature major might), I think the handwriting could be benefitial. What a fantastic idea to think about! Thank you for bringing it up. :)
ReplyDelete