> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***]On
Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 10:38
PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Language
_expression_; html vs plain text
>
>
> 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
>