Snail mail

[Eoghan]

I think a case could be made for offering written correspondence. I often find that typing things into a post does not give pause for reflection. I think it would be useful to encourage correspondence.

Try reading "Why Johnny Can't Preach" - one of the reasons given for the decline in expository preaching is a failure to write. The thought processes in writing a letter are contemplative, in contrast most modern substitutes are closer to a "stream of consciousness".

The Puritans were great journal keepers and letter writers - one of the reasons we have such a wealth of information about them to refute the way modern historians attempt to portray them!

Anyway I am off to post a request for correspondence!

 

[Notthemama1984]

Are you suggesting that the PB should convert to a snail mail model?

 

[LawrenceU]

Eoghan, I share your viewpoint.

 

[Andres]

I respectfully disagree. I hate snail mail. I can type much faster and more efficiently on the keyboard than I can by handwriting. I don't know whether I am considered a "good" writer or a "poor" writer, but I put the same amount of thought into my correspondence whether its by email or by snail mail.

 

[Zenas]

Maybe I'm different, but I tend to re-read my posts for spelling errors and to see if I want to change something. I often revise longer posts multiple times.

 

[TimV]

Just make sure you write with a quill and ink, so it takes longer, since that's the main criteria

 

[Tripel]

I don't see how handwriting a letter is generally a better form of correspondence than typing an email. Granted, there are times where the personal touch of a handwritten note is preferable, but I see those as very specific occasions. For general communication, I am pro-technology.

And just in case this thread goes in the direction I anticipate, I'll go ahead and state that I don't buy into the notion that cell phones, texting, and social networking are hindering the younger generation from knowing how to communicate.... or whatever argument is being made by "old-fashioned" types these days.

 

[Jack K]

It seems to me we've always had people who can't write well, or don't care to. The Internet just makes them more noticable.

There are sloppy, non-thinking writers online, and there are thoughtful and careful ones. I suppose if pen and paper make you more careful, that might be a better way to write. But I'm not sure this is the case for all of us. In fact, there are some who would seldom write anything if it weren't for being connected online. In such cases, online communication is helping to solve the failure-to-write problem by encouraging people to write who otherwise wouldn't write at all.

 

[Andres]

In fact, there are some who would seldom write anything if it weren't for being connected online. In such cases, online communication is helping to solve the failure-to-write problem by encouraging people to write who otherwise wouldn't write at all.

there are a lot of people who wouldn't read anything if not for online articles, blurbs, etc.

 

[Skyler]

I write a lot better on the computer than I do on paper. Taking longer to write doesn't mean I put more thought into it; it means I lose my train of thought more easily. Either that or I write so fast my handwriting is unreadable to anyone except my mom and (in some cases) myself.

 

[Edward]

Those who are offended by my posts REALLY would not like my letters.

 

[kvanlaan]

I love snail mail, though I rarely partake thereof anymore. But I do find that I put so much more thought into what I write when I know that it is on paper, not sure why. Jonathan, I'm afraid you were one of those raised in the internet age, hence the love of 'intarnet' over the hand- written word.

 

[Eoghan]

I have been writing to my father for over a year now, writing 4/5 sides of A4 closely written with narrow margins. When you have to write that much you need to be coherent. I listen to contemporary sermons and they are all over the place! One of the "problems" with posting on the board is the brevity and that an argument is not fully developed. How long is the average posting? Not particularly long! Is it long enough to clearly delineate what is being intended without people being distracted? I think not! With attention spans something like a goldfish we "react" to what we perceive without really listening. I think the "time delay" is necessary to allow some reflection and this is implicit in correspondence. The Puritans in America spent some time discussing the prospect of independence from England 25-30 years in which letters went back and forward developing and discussing the arguments. One of their decisions was that they did NOT want a democracy where the mob ruled. Yes the general public could change the constitution but not on the spur of the moment.

Think about the preoccupation with the ephemera! I was listening to the presentation of the Gospel in our school assembly and I thought how quickly can you present the Gospel? Well our visitor took 15 minutes! I doubt that his audience had any real understanding of who God is or who Jesus was or why we die. At one point I wanted to jump up and point out that Christians still die! That would have been inappropriate though - playing devils advocate. Then again would it have been - a socratic dialogue in which objections are raised and then overcome is almost Pauline in the development of an argument. As Byron said to Mr. Garaboldy (B5) you never go into a situation without thinking through what they will say and what you will say in reply what they will reply and how you will counter. When you think about it Jewish arguments take the form of questions a lot of the time it is the way that arguments were developed. This is why when Jesus was in the |Temple as a boy he was credited with TEACHING when in reality he only asked QUESTIONS. It is a cultural misunderstanding to mistake the question for an enquiry instead of positive teaching. I made this mistake when I sat in the pew - not now. We need to learn from Judaism and, lest I be misunderstood, I mean the Judaism of the NT era NOT what it has become under the rabbinic school post Temple.

There are many reasons for the demise of expository preaching, a loss of confidence in the authority of the Word, ...in fact I can't really get past that primary diagnosis. Yet I am sure that if you compare a Puritan sermon with what we get now the Puritan sermon went somewhere and actually developed a sermon based on a text. They knew their scriptures, what they meant and what they did not. Their appeal was to the intellect yes, but also to the emotions - not it should be said by bypassing the mind using music (or video clips?) but through the words they chose. Quite what they would make of modern altar calls with their repetitive emotional appeals backed by a choir and band playing on your emotions I do not know. That does not stop me imagining though!

Writing alters the way you think - for the better.

 

[VictorBravo]

Nobody has mentioned typing on a mechanical typewriter. That is my favorite way to compose. The snapping feedback of little hammers beating on hard rubber reminds me to be crisp and clear. But I have to admit modern "cut and paste" is a lot easier than the method it is named after.

I love writing by hand too, but nowadays I only do it for note taking while reading. Ironically, I then scan the notes to pdf and put various tags on them so I can search them on my computer.

I took a look at some old journals of mine from the 70s through the 90s. They were handwritten. Many entries were fairly long essays. I was surprised about two things: (1) The writing style was pretty good and the discussion quite coherent for a young guy, but I wouldn't say any better than my later work using computers, and (2) I was a well-read, introspective, narcissistic, and pagan fool who wrote page after page on most everything, and virtually none of it was worth preserving.

If you care about writing, you can make the switch to any sort of instrument and remain competent. My wife is an excellent writer. She had to transition to Dragon NaturallySpeaking because she couldn't type anymore. She said it took probably three months to rewire her brain to get her style back, but back it came.

 

[Eoghan]

Very interesting Raymond. When i took the plunge into IT I almost bought a word processor/typewritter with a four line LCD screen. Now I have gone full circle and gone back to a fountain pen!

 

[LawrenceU]

Nobody has mentioned typing on a mechanical typewriter. That is my favorite way to compose. The snapping feedback of little hammers beating on hard rubber reminds me to be crisp and clear. But I have to admit modern "cut and paste" is a lot easier than the method it is named after.

I was using my typewriter just this afternoon. Yes, it is an Underwood. What else! It is also older than almost everyone on the PB. On second thought I don't think anyone here is as old as she is.

 

[VictorBravo]

I was using my typewriter just this afternoon. Yes, it is an Underwood. What else! It is also older than almost everyone on the PB. On second thought I don't think anyone here is as old as she is.

Ha, I should have known it would have to be an Underwoood! My wife has an old one of those too that is close to flawless in condition.

I, on the other hand, have a pretty modern Olympia portable sitting on my desk. Circa 1950 something. It is in perfect condition and a joy to use.

 

[EverReforming]

Very interesting Raymond. When i took the plunge into IT I almost bought a word processor/typewritter with a four line LCD screen. Now I have gone full circle and gone back to a fountain pen!

Except when taking notes, I don't handwrite near as much as I used to, but when I do, fountain pens have become my preferred means as well. A quality fountain pen really is a joy to use as opposed to the standard ball point pens.