Re: Language expression; html vs plain text

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi James, Hi Everybody,

This is a very modern dilemma, it seems to me! The issue of how to use
language in a technology that distorts upon reception... It seems to me that
there are actually two distinct issues here. There's the problem of
technological distortion but there is also the issue of how to use language
, in written form, to communicate thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. It's true
that subtlety can be lost if one relies too heavily on extraneous devices,
such as "special effects". The content of a message should always be first--
as a writer, I have no respect for flashy, empty prose. When conveying
intellectual stuff, the last thing one should do is rely on the mode to
relay the message.

Having said that, however, there is also the difference between expressing
the primary information in a message and expressing other (secondary)
information between the lines, as the expression goes. The between-the-lines
stuff is information that we would be expressing in person through tone,
rhythm, body language, facial expression, etc. In writing, I know of only
two feasible ways to do it, to which the internet boom has added a third.

The first way is the one that I prefer and have used most of the time in my
posts. I am a moderate when it comes to expression, in that I try to
replicate on computer what I am able express in language with the
capabilities of a pen and paper. I believe there has to be some balance
between the original intention of the message and the mode of conveying the
ideas. There's an aesthetic involved. Ideas are the province of a mind.
Therefore, what is expressed is more than just reams of data. Communication
between people requires some finesse, or at least that's what I find most
interesting and stimulating.  I feel that, using common punctuation and
fairly simple visual devices, one can convey a great deal of secondary
information without having that information overtake the primary information
in emphasis. The capabilities I refer to are the only ones in "rich text"
(aka html) that I use. I don't need color and pictures and all those flashy
things-- they don't exist if one is writing with a pen on paper. But the
other devices of written language that I mentioned ARE possible with pen and
ink (underlining, bold, italics, changed fonts, etc) and are the parts of
html email format that are, in my opinion, worthy of interest.
(Incidentally, using them isn't necessarily the same thing as overusing or
abusing them. That's another discussion!)

If one relied entirely on plain text capabilities, one would have to move to
plan B: Convey all that secondary information as prose, which tends to
present it on the same level as the main information. It's usually not good
to do that because the main information is obscured. It's hidden amongst all
sorts of lesser information. The message becomes almost a stream of
consciousness kind of thing, at that point. I think most people would join
me in my dislike of that idea. It's rare to find ANYONE else whose stream of
consciousness you really want to bathe in! Secondary thoughts might be a
delightful spice in between the lines of a conversation but become tedious
when elevated to the same level of expression as the original thoughts.

Then there's the third way that the internet boom has created: Emoticons,
plus the new uses for common written or typed symbols... I have a problem
with most of that. From what I've seen, it's usually a case of replacing
perfectly serviceable punctuation with different punctuation. Using a dash
as if it is a set of quotation marks is redundant, somehow. It doesn't mean
anything different than the quotation marks do. So, I'd rather use the
correct punctuation. And the emoticons don't appeal to me-- they're just too
generic. In a handwritten letter, even a smiley face looks different from
person to person. On a computer, it's more like a mask. So, again; if I have
to come up with an alternative to the rich text email mode, I'd rather just
not express much secondary information than go the route of the emoticon.
(But I'm a moderate, not a purist: I have no desire to impose my aesthetic
on anyone else's mode of expression. I don't mind other people using those
internet-based expressive devices, but it's not something I'm inclined to
add to my repertoire.)

Given a choice between #2 and #3, I rebel. The result, for me, is to strip
my ideas down to the bare bones when I have to use plain text. It's not as
aesthetically pleasing to me and not as much fun to use. But it's way better
than driving Athel nuts! Plain text it is, for list posts.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosennean ideas and better modelling...


> Dear Judith,
>
>
>   There -are- other usable asci symbols to 'make a point', or,
> to change the phrasings    and emphasis    of ideas one wants
> to get across while writing.  If there is _anything_ you can
> meme in rich text  (abeit it -is- "rich" in OBVIOUS ways) but
> that doesn't mean that with a --little ingenuity-- a person
> can convey nuances of expression in "plain" text  -  just  -
> as - well. (!)     ;-)
>
> eg:  There -are- other usable ...
>
> vs   There are -other- usable ...
>
> vs   There are other -usable- ...
>
> with just a bit of extra characters usage, the writer can
> take and mold the conveyance -more accurately- to their
> meanings and purposes.   HTML is a (ahem) .. "model" ..
> a language of visual utility. Text conventions of italics and
> underscores are only 'model parts' also, and we are not committed
> to -those- and _only those_ "emphatics!"
>
> Have F-U-N with the visual-verbal world at hand.  I bet
> your father- would have been -enchanted- with the notion
> of writing ~ using these alternative symbols to hone in on
> and focus readers to his thoughts more exactly.
>
> James