ResponsesForJan16And18

Write your name in the "Subject" box below. Write your response in the response box. Try to write at least 200 words. When you're done, hit "add comment."

Your assignment is to respond to Dennis Baron's "From Pencils to Pixels." There's a lot in the essay. Here are three suggestions for response:

1) Start with his central claim: "My contention in this essay is a modest one: the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies. In many ways its development parallels that of the pencil - hence my title - though the computer seems more complex and is undoubtedly more expensive. The authenticity of pencil writing is still frequently questioned: we prefer that signatures and other permanent or validating documents be in ink. While I’m not aware that anyone actually opposed the use of pencils when they began to be used for writing, other literacy technologies, including writing itself, were initially met with suspicion as well as enthusiasm." Do you agree with him? For example: will email replace the personal letter? Or: should college students be able to turn in papers in hypertext or text message format? Why or why not?

2) Baron says that we "have a way of getting so used to writing technologies that we come to think of them as natural rather than technological." Can you list the writing technologies you use - there are probably many! How are they "naturalized"? How do these technologies influence your expression and meaning? For example, do you always express yourself the same way in a text message vs. in a formal essay for class? Why or why not?

3) Baron admits that he depends on computers and describes his inability to compose directly on paper: "It wasn't so much that I couldn't think of the words, but the physical effort of handwriting, crossing out, revising, cutting and pasting ... now seemed to overwhelm and constrict me." For Baron, handwriting is more cumbersome than computing and therefore seems to limit his ability to write. Do you agree? Make a case from your experience for or against his argument.

comments:

Christina Malcomb --cmalcomb, Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:34:08 -0500 reply
I agree with Baron on the issue of handwriting being more cumbersome than computing. The physical effort of handwriting does seem to be more strenuous than the physical effort of typing. Typing for a long period of time does not hurt my hands, but writing quickly for more than 15 or 20 minutes gives me a cramp in my right hand. For this reason, and many others, I have found myself becoming more and more reliant on word processors. It seems a lot easier for my ideas to spill out onto the computer screen as I'm typing than it does for them to flow across the page when I'm writing on paper. This is probably because I type faster than I write, and I can simply use the backspace key when I've made a mistake as opposed to taking time to erase a mistake made on paper. Cutting and pasting is another handy tool of the word processor that I have grown accustomed to. I am also spoiled by spell checker and the thesaurus that Word provides. All of these things make writing less time consuming. It is also easier because most things I write for my classes are required to be typed anyway, so typing them in the first place is better than writing them on paper and typing them later. Overall, I find that computers make writing an easier and more enjoyable process for me.

Jennifer Habina --jhabina, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:43:06 -0500 reply
I do agree with Baron when it comes to using computers over pencils and paper. Baron states that writing constricts him and I feel that it does the same to me. I have been using a computer for many years now and I am used to the keyboard and typing. I am a fast typer and I get my thoughts out at just about the same time as I can type them. Writing on paper takes longer and I often forget many ideas because I have not finished writing down my previous ideas. It is also easier to fix mistakes because all that I have to do is hit the "backspace" key and my mistakes are gone. When writing with a pencil you in a way have to "exhaust" yourself to get rid of your mistake/mistakes. Using computers for writing is easier for me because it is faster. I agree with Baron on how handwiriting limits my abilities to write, but I will point out that I feel like it is a problem. I wish I did not depend on my computer as much to not only write but to communicate as well. I would like to be able to handwrite more often, but with the way things are today, there is just not enough time.

Erica Reib --ereib, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:42:12 -0500 reply
After reading this essay, I think that I now better understand the trepidation with which people approach new writing technologies. Change is hard for people to accept on any level. People who are so far emersed in the ways that things are, like writers who have always used a typewriter, can have a particularly difficult time dealing with new practices and modes of thinking. The history of pencils was interesting and I think that this story parallels how computers as a form of writing will continue to develop and new uses will emerge. I most certainly think that emails will, if they have not already, eclipse the personal letter. I receive, at most, one hand written letter per month. In contrast, everyone from my twelve year old cousin to my grandmother send me emails me whenever they feel like it. I think this ties in with the third prompt and the fact that many people view actual hand to paper writing as cumbersome. However, I feel that writing should still hold a place of some regard and reverence, especially in the academic sector. Papers that are being turned in at a university in a classroom setting should have proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, and general mechanics. Writing them shorthand or in the language that one would use for a text message would be to disregard the entire English language. If we let the standards deteriorate at the collegiate level it will only cause havoc at all other levels of education.

Michael L. Withrow --mwithrow, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:56:20 -0500 reply
While I agree with Dennis Baron in his statement that the computer is simply providing the next step in the ever evolving world of writing, I do not believe that word processing software will ever completely replace paper. Although it may be well on its way to becoming the more dominant form of writing, in great part do to the level of convenience it can provide, the volatility of digital technology still remains as a deterrent to some individuals and the sheer cost of obtaining such technology is beyond the means of a large portion of the earth's population. Even to those who have access to this technology, cost is an issue. Furthermore, there is an entire generation of people who were not brought up with word processing and computer based writing and find the technology to be intimidating or problematic. Most professors encourage student use of word processing in the construction of essays and various assignments because of the clarity offered by standard font versus personal handwriting but simply will not except digital copies of assignments and require the personal contact that comes with actually turning in a hard copy. Additionally, the physical element of hard copy is just something that some people find comforting; nothing can replace the feeling of a piece of paper in your hands. In my humble opinion, the combination of hard copy and computer based writing is likely the most suitable means of transferring documents in a given situation if at all possible; a combination of old and new technologies.

James McCeney? --jmcceney, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:52:59 -0500 reply
I can definitely see how Baron connects the concept of recording language with a pencil to doing the same with a computer; I never really put the two together until I read this essay, though. Both media are regarded by the greater population as impermanent and mutable, and in using each the resulting writing can easily be amended or erased as necessary. Both the pencil and the word processor can be perceived as only temporary means to a final product: that is, as merely instruments used to draft language rather than display it as an ultimate form of art. A word processing file really isn’t regarded as “complete” until it becomes actual ink on a tangible piece of paper, and likewise with a handwritten document (say a wedding invitation or some other medium that requires calligraphy or other detailed handwriting). In regards to emails replacing handwritten letters, this is definitely going to happen. Who wants to go through the hassle of paying 37 cents to send a piece of paper to someone who won’t receive it for days? It’s even happening for birthday cards and party invitations, which used to be the most intimate of handwritten documents. Digital cards and invites save money on paper, ink, postage, and labor, and take a total of about 5 seconds to send. Also, rather than sending valuable print pictures or videotapes through the mail to show your friend or relative, you can merely digitize them, save them to your hard drive, and send them instantly to whoever you want. While the most intimate of handwritten documents (love letters, invitations to once-in-a-lifetime events, etc) probably won’t die out simply because they are meant to show the true humanity behind the language on the paper, the ones we really don’t have time to concern ourselves with will most certainly be banished to digital.

Jeff Bowers --jbowers, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:01:47 -0500 reply
The written word as a form of expression goes much deeper than what appears on the page. Expression is often a derivative of many factors aside from the words themselves. To this extent, the written word is often considered to be more personal if it is written by hand. This could be attributed to many factors, including the idea that handwriting has another level of expression to itself. Speaking strictly in terms of expression, word processors come up short when compared to handwriting. Even though the words can be translated and the fundamental message remains the same, there is a certain amount of meaning that is lost when something is converted from a unique handwriting to a standard computer font. Even though a computer does allow for the customization of text through the uses of different fonts, styles, and colors, the level of personalization differs greatly when comparing handwriting to word processing. And even though word processing is sometimes used more today, there will always be a place for handwriting.

Alison Daly --adaly, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:51:48 -0500 reply
Baron's reasoning that handwriting is more cumbersome than word processing is true to an extent, I think, but I don't believe that one way is better than the other. In my own experience, it is true that word processing is much quicker, and perhaps less painful (although a few hours on the machine and my wrists are going fast). My thoughts flow much much faster on a computer and I am able to get everything down in time before I forget the next thing I'm about to write. However, writing with a pen or a pencil on simple sheets of looseleaf can lend a much more personal effect -- for myself or for whomever ends up reading the work. It can be much more rewarding to see personal handwriting and much less bland when seeing word processing. So in terms of handwriting being cumbersome versus using a computer, I honestly think it depends on what the writing is for and who will be reading it. Every piece of writing is intended for someone to see, whether that someone is you or that someone is many many other people, so depending on the situation, the writing technique should be decided accordingly.

Patrick Brooks --pbrooks, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:36:26 -0500 reply
I definitely agree with Baron’s claim that computers are “simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies.” As a society we have seemingly evolved technologically to they next step in communication. As college students we see it everyday. Online quizzes, emailing homework, PowerPoint? presentations, online peer review journals, this very paragraph are all examples of hi-tech advancements in communication and education. Also, much like the pencil and the computer, these advances were met with anticipation and contempt. Many professors love the possibilities that these new technologies offer; however, there are still just as many who cling to the “old fashion” style of simple lecture. As for the two questions in the prompt, I feel that email has already replaced the letter in most conventional ways. At Christmas and birthdays we still insist on mailing cards but most other business has switched to the internet. Pay stubs, bills, bank statements, and most personal correspondences have become integrated with the internet. This most certainly reaches the classroom as well. This English 303 class is just the latest in a long line of classes that have required online coursework and creation of websites for the depositing of research.

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:47:28 -0500 reply
Before reading this essay, I never imagined the idea that, at one point in time, a pencil was thought to be a technological breakthrough and that some people refused to accept it. I cannot even begin to imagine what life would be like if there were no pencils. However, there are other breakthroughs that I can compare to this idea. My grandmother still insists that she does not want to learn how to send an email. Even more recently, another relative of mine did not want to give up his personal cd player for an Ipod. Another section of this essay that I found hard to imagine is the idea that, when first created, "writing itself was once an innovation strongly resisted by traditionalists." It's also difficult for me to imagine erasing pencil marks with bread crumbs. I do not think that word processing is superior to handwriting. Maybe I am just resisting change, but I still write all of my papers and letters in longhand before typing them on a computer. I just do not trust a computer for storage; I need a handwritten copy. A point in the article I disagree with is the idea that books will become extinct. I would much rather read a book than sit and read something off of a computer screen. I hope I'm not the only person who feels that way.

Brittany Swisher --bswisher, Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:38:04 -0500 reply
I agree with Baron when he says that computer communication will take the place of handwritten communication. In my first week of my English 304 class, I have already learned the importance of a professional email. My first two assignments in that writing class were not tangible, but emails to my teacher. I understand that most of us still like to hold something concrete in our hands after hours of work on a project or report- but isn't that what a printer is for? I personally have horrible handwriting. I know that as I first learned how to perfectly write my name in cursive and print, I was also learning to type properly. If we would all look back and trace our first 12 years of our education, we would see that as we grew older, pencil and paper were for in-class note taking and most other assignments were to be typed. I am sure that we have all heard of colleges and universities across the country that provide their students with laptops for their classwork. Most lecture halls at WVU are even equipped with wireless internet for students. Internet-based courses are also being offered at WVU and most other colleges; I even took a completely online history class in HIGH SCHOOL. With that class, I experienced that the disadvantage of not having a teacher in front of me to address my questions outweighed the advantage of doing my classwork in my pajamas. However, I think that someday these kinks will be worked out as webcams and video conferences and other technological advancements become less expensive. Not only do I believe that paper will become obsolete, but the internet is also taking the place of convential classrooms!

Kim Miller --kmiller, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:35:21 -0500 reply
Like Baron, I also find it becoming more and more difficult to write with a pencil and paper. When I was in high school and had to write a paper, I would always write everything out by hand before going to a computer and typing it. I don't do this at all anymore. It is so much quicker for me to just sit down at a computer and type as ideas come to me. I don't want to take the time to write something out and then spend even more time typing what I've already written. If I write something with a pen and paper and then decide I want to move something to another part of the paper, I have to cross things out or draw arrows to the spot I want to move it to or write little notes to myself so I know exactly where it belongs. If I am typing the paper, I can just copy the text I want to move and paste it into a new spot. It is much easier and quicker. Sometimes when I am reading and taking notes for a class it seems like it takes twice as long for me to write them by hand as it would to type. This shouldn't be hard or take me so long, but as I use computers more and more, it is becoming more difficult for me to write with a pen and paper.

Kristen Crestfield --kcrestfield, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:51:33 -0500 reply
When it comes to writing on paper I dont feel like I can really express what I want to. Like Baron I feel that im more powerful when I write directly on a computer. I seem to get my point across because I feel that its coming right from me. Of course when I was a kid i'd write my rough draft out nicely on paper and then transfer it over, becuase I had to do it. Now a days my mind has evolved into a different perspective, meaning I cant really write it out on paper anymore. I dont feel like it comes from me becuase I will second guess myself, and change things. I mean on paper I make notes, and then refer back to them. When I use the computer it comes from me at THAT moment, what im realy feeling. To me thats better becuase if I write it out on paper I dont feel its really the best. I do agree with Baron though, our world is so computerized. Everything is going to go electronic, im just helping spee up the process.

April Marrara --amarrara, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:42:24 -0500 reply
deft digits v. heavy hands

In his article, “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology,” Dennis Baron notes that drafting with pen and paper has become an obstacle to completing compositions and that typing his documents is less physically strenuous and more flexible than transferring his thoughts directly to hard copy.

I would agree with Baron that handwriting is more physical than typing, in particular requiring more effort from hand muscles than using a keyboard. The author basically seems to say that this slightly more physical effort is cumbersome to composition. On a personal level, I would admit to the same sense of ease and freedom in typing over the use of ink and tablet, but I really think that has a lot to do with the association of thought and muscle memory rather than the relative ease of the respective methods.

One of the ways I used to study for tests was to read or otherwise recall the pertinent information along with a hand motion or three winks or a tap of my foot—just something physical—a movement that would go with the data in my mind. I don’t know why it worked exactly, I just know that when I’d set my thumb between my third and forth finger, I’d be more likely to remember Khufu built the Great Pyramid or whatever that gesture was poised to remind me of that day. I don’t see how what Baron’s saying is any different. The motion of his fingers on the keyboard loosens his memory, setting his words to the surface of his mind, much like the way his digits hover just above the keys until they’re called for.

Baron’s small testimony that the most convenient position for composition is at the tips of his fingers would seem to underscore the primary point of the larger article: the course of modern literacy and the continued development of computers and the Internet are intertwined, and they will adapt to and with each other.

Christina Malcomb --mwithrow, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0500 reply
There is no doubt that using word processing for composition is much easier than handwriting, because of the brain sparing tools that computers offer. The act of typing is quicker and allows for mistakes to be more easily corrected, but then again paper and pencil never require electricity and never lose battery power. Each method is convenient in a different way.

Michael L. Withrow --jmcceney, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:40:49 -0500 reply
I hear that. There's something unsettling about just turing in a digital copy of a document. Having a tangible, printed version is definitely more comforting, in that said final copy really can't be changed or tampered with like the digital part can. It kind of goes back to the idea of pencil vs ink, in that giving someone a document written in impermanent pencil is somehow less professional than if it is written with a pen. Using both writing utensils, however, gives you both a draft that can be amended if need be and a neat final copy to give to whoever needs it.

Michael L. Withrow --bswisher, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:41:03 -0500 reply
"Even to those who have access to this technology, cost is an issue. Furthermore, there is an entire generation of people who were not brought up with word processing and computer based writing and find the technology to be intimidating or problematic."

These may be issues today, but I think that Baron meant that the evolution would occur over time. Not to be insensitive, but the generation you refer will likely die off within the next 10-20 years- leaving a population that has been exposed to technology all their lives. As far as cost is concerned, there was a day when only the elite could afford everyday luxuries. Baron also mentions that as time progresses, new technologies become more and more affordable. I know that there are payment plans now that allow you to buy a computer for about $20 a month, and internet service for less than $10 a month. Paper will never go away, but it's users may become the minority sooner than you'd expect.

Patrick Brooks --cmalcomb, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:41:34 -0500 reply
I agree with you and Baron when you say that technology in communications will just continue to evolve and that the computer is just a step in that evolutionary chain. I think people will continue to look for ways to make communicating quicker and easier. I also agree that there will always be those who prefer the "old fashioned" ways because we see that with any change. There are those who welcome the new technology and those who just want things to stay the same.

Jeff Bowers --mwithrow, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:41:38 -0500 reply
Agreed, using word processors does deny a composition of a large portion of the human element. Generally, a person's handwriting is his or her own, another uniqueness which accompanies individual writing styles. More personal writings, such as letters or cards are probably best written by hand if time allows simply for the personality of the action. Nothing can replace a human hand scratching out letters from graphite onto a piece of paper.

Erica O'Briant --pbrooks, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:42:00 -0500 reply
I very much agree with your comments on books. Not only is it hard for me to imagine books being replaced by digital text, it saddens me greatly. Perhaps I am a hopeless romantic, but I love the idea of tangible knowledge that you can get from a book. This love of books many times is my downfall in that I can not bear to throw a book away, and tend to keep books that serve me no purpose. As for you writing out your essays and letters, I am amazed by this. I have not met anyone for several years that still handwrites all of their papers. The creative sections of my brain have long since forgot how to handwrite a paper.

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:42:04 -0500 reply
I kind of disagree with you about letters becoming extinct because, while emails are free, sending letters the old fashion way is more personal and considerate. Items such as wedding invitations lose their formality if just sent through an email.

James McCeney? --jbowers, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:42:51 -0500 reply
totally agree with you on the letters vs. email argument. ease of use, time, and money will always play a role in determing what writing technology to use. who sends letters anymore, anyway?

Kim Miller --bswisher, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:43:15 -0500 reply
I completely agree with you. I am a journalism major and the most I write down for a story are the correct spellings of names and statistics. I can't remember the last time I wrote my rough draft for anything in longhand.

Kristen Crestfield --kcrestfield, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:43:18 -0500 reply
I agree with Jennifer when im typing on the computer I know that my feelings are current. They are off the the top of my head at that moment. When I write on paper I always feel that I have to go back and erase something, or I keep chaning it. Rather then on the computer I can do as she said just use the back spacce and earase something. I can even undo my typing, and get back what I wrote before if needed. Handwriting does limit the subject that im writing on, computers are just better.

Michael L. Withrow --amarrara, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:43:36 -0500 reply
I agree with you that it is unlikely pencil and paper will ever truly become obsolete. While computers ease communications and aid research, it is hard copy that people trust with their important information. It is difficult to predict whether this manner of thinking will continue in perpetuity, but one must recognize that while parchment and ink may be the measure of quality now, electronic copy is considered as becoming more trustworthy.

Erica O'Briant --adaly, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:44:20 -0500 reply
I agree that computers can't always be trusted for storage; in fact I've had to reboot my own laptop at least 5 times in the last 2 years because of problems and I've lost much of my work due to crashes. I have books and books of handwritten material, and it's always fun to look back at them to see how my writing has changed over the years. It makes it more personal, too. Computers are great for quickness and checkers, but there will definitely always be a place for the handwritten word. In another point she brought up, many people are sticking to the traditional way of doing technological things -- whether it's their age or their lack of wanting to learn a new technique -- and I think that it's perfectly fine. Books are much easier and much more relaxing to read than documents off of a computer and I sincerely hope that they never do go into extinction. What a crime that would be!

Alison Daly --kmiller, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:44:48 -0500 reply
I agree with your point that both word processing and handwriting have their own place and are appropriate for different situations. While I do feel that typing something is quicker than writing it with a pen, there are still times that I would prefer to handwrite certain things. If I'm writing something that will eventually be turned in for a class or work, then I find it easier to type it initially rather than writing it by hand and then typing it later. However, if I'm writing something for myself, like a journal entry, I'd prefer to handwrite it.

Brittany Swisher --cmalcomb, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:45:31 -0500 reply
I also agree that computer written communication could take the place of handwritten communication. I had Engl 304 last semester and we learned how important the use of word processors and e-mail is so important in the business world. Also, in other classes, teachers always want the finished product to be typed, not handwritten. I've even had one literature teacher say that he never wanted to see any samples of our handwriting because he preffered everything to be typed.

Sara Bailey in response to Michael Withrow --sbailey, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:45:35 -0500 reply
I agree when Michael said that "word processing software will ever completely replace paper". Back in the 10th grade, which was about 7 years ago, the teacher on the first day of class handed out a sheet of paper which had many interesting facts. It said that if the world contained only 100 people, based on today's statistics, that only one person would own a computer. Of course, 7 years ago is a long time, so it may or may not be more today, but when you consider population of the world and how much of the population live in under-developped countries, then you realize that computers haven't reached the entire world yet.

Erica Reib --ereib, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:46:50 -0500 reply
I agree with Michael Witherow's point about computers and digital files not totally replacing paper documents. There is an element of comfort and familiarity in a physical piece of paper. I know that I prefer to read out of a textbook for 20 pages rather than scroll down for endless eternities with an online document. Pretty much everyone made the point that it's simply easier to draft and redraft papers when using a computer. As an English minor, as I know so many others in this class are, we have had such a strong emphasis placed on reworking our papers and how changing the smallest detail can be so important. I think word processors help with this element of revision because changing details is so much quicker and simpler. I am amazed by Erica O'Briant's dedication to continuing to write papers out with a pen or pencil because I know that I certainly do not have that amount of patience. And as I'm sure is evident in my posts, my spelling struggles when I do not have the aid of spell check.

Jeff Bowers --jmcceney, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:46:55 -0500 reply
There are definitely some forms of handwritten communication that will never die out just because that's the most important aspect: actually writing the document. Some documents are so personal that there's really no way to record them other than by hand, and I think people know that. Unfortunately, people are also apt to choose convenience over older technology, and a lot of things like party invitations and birthday cards have been turned into stuff you can just send via email.

Angela Moscaritolo --amoscaritolo, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:47:07 -0500 reply
I agree with many of my classmates such as Alison Daly and Cristina Malcomb that typing on a computer is a faster and easier method of getting ones thoughts onto the page. I also agree with another one of my classmates, Michael L. Withrow, that computers will never fully take over the pencil and paper. I believe that this is true because learning how to write is a fundamental building block in education. If one has not learned how to write they will be greatly disadvantaged in this world. For this reason, the need to learn to write using pencil and paper will continue forever, in my opinion. Computers do take writing to the next level, think of trying to write a ten page paper or even worse, a book by hand. It would be torturous. For these reasons, computers greatly aid those of us who are fortunate enough to rely on them, but they will never completely take over the pencil and paper.

Alison Daly --pbrooks, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:47:10 -0500 reply
The idea of the personal correspondence is quickly becoming extinct. I receive 10-20 legitimate emails a day, however, it has been many months since I have received a letter. I agree with you that some instances call for the personal touch that handwriting offers. Letters from family, friends, or romantic acquaintances just are not the same if when you open the envelope it looks like a form letter.

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:47:53 -0500 reply
I still am unable to give up handwriting a first draft of anything, despite the fact that it is more time consuming. I do agree with you that the more I uses a computer for something, the harder it is for me to do things "the old fashion way." For example, if I actually take the time to write out a memo or letter as opposed to an email, I have to remind myself of the proper formats for each before beginning.

Alison Daly --adispenza, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:48:05 -0500 reply
I agree with what you wrote about how it depends on the situation. Today, we are use to reading practically everything in word processor. From textbooks to simple memo's, everything is written through the use of a computer. Everyone's handwritting differs and most individuals are difficult to read. Therefore, it is easier to read and edit if written on a computer. When I take notes in class but handwritting is very sloppy and not written according to Standard English. This form is acceptable for my personal use but I would never turn them in. By writing on a computer one is able to read what they have previously written more clearly, organized well, and able to edit effectively. Also, it is much faster and I agree with you that when I write on a computer my thoughts flow much easier because I am able to get them down and edit while I type. The times when I handwrite is when I want it to be more personal. Such as a thank you letter to a relative. Situation definitely matters but computers are over taking the pencil.

Kristen Crestfield --kmiller, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:48:44 -0500 reply
I also feel like I can express myself better by typing than by writing with a pencil and paper. I can just sit down at a computer and what I want to type usually comes to me immediately. If I try to handwrite on the same topic, it might take twenty minutes before I figure out the first thing I want to say. It really seems like writing certain things with a pencil and paper holds me back.

Jeff Bowers --jgavette, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:48:48 -0500 reply
I agree that the written word is more personal when written by hand. A person can appreciate how much thought went into the hand written letter than a letter that is quickly typed and sent with email. I believe that the hand written letter is more personal because it shows some of the writer's character in their handwriting. I agree that there will always be a place for handwriting, because more emotion can be expressed with handwriting and a handwritten letter is more of a keepsake than a typed letter.

Kristen Crestfield --kcrestfield, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:49:31 -0500 reply
I dont think that I fully agree with Jeff that there will always be a place for pen and paper. This is becuase as we grow the world is becoming more digitalized, and someday everything as we speak will be digitalized. The use of computers is growing, and expression doesnt change. If you write with a pen and paper you still have the same expression as if you write on the computer. The only difference is you see the handwriting of the person and not fonts or texts.Expression doesnt come from paper or from computers, it comes within. Nothing is going to change the way we write or the way we feel, even in a socially technological world.

Erica Reib --adaly, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:49:43 -0500 reply
What a good way to express what would happen if we were to write school papers in the form of a text message: "If we let the standards deteriorate at the collegiate level it will only cause havoc at all other levels of education." I agree that for academic purposes, writing should always be looked upon with higher standards because that is the only way that one can learn. If computer technology were to completely overcome everything else we learned as children in elementary school, where would that leave the future? Will our own children be learning to write and speak like robotic computers? I surely hope not.

Jeff Bowers --amarrara, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:50:30 -0500 reply
You make a good point that handwriting adds to the message communicated. Dark ink and short, straight lines could indicate anger, while a light hand and loopy cursive might speak by itself of a light mood. By this assertion, we might automatically understand handwriting to be more personal than typing as more of the author is inserted into the message, written between the lines and accenting the words themselves much the same as tone or gestures might (though of course on a lesser scale). I do believe that there is something to that theory and that more of what we want to say can be conveyed by hand than by type.

Sara Bailey in response to James McCeney? --sbailey, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:50:41 -0500 reply
The fact that computers and word-processing equipment will replace many written forms such as letters, invitations, and sending photos is very true. When I had a loved one in Iraq, I handwrote letters everyday. Those letters took sometimes 2 weeks to reach him. By that time, he already knew what I had to say based on emails or instant messages. But, even because I knew this, I still sent the letters. For some reason, that little piece of handwritten communication meant the most.

Erica O'Briant --eobriant, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:53:09 -0500 reply
My disagreement with letters becoming extinct was in reply to James McCeney?. I didn't include his name, sorry.

Michael L. Withrow --eprompovitch, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:55:03 -0500 reply
I agree that technology is forever growing and forever changing, but i think that word and the internet will be more dominant that the pencil and paper. I believe that over time the word processor will become more advanced and will further more push out the use of the pencil and paper, but that is over time. I agree that cost is a major factor in using new technology, but soon the new tech. will become the old, making everything more cost effecient for those less fortunate. Our generation is certainly more adapt to the use of computers, the world wide web, and all the techological advances that are readily availible to us. I think our generation will be using the internet and the new technologies for everyday survival, whether it be work or pleasure. I agree that the combintation of both new and old technologies are being used in our daily lives, but unfortunately i think that the computer will soon over-run the pencil and pad.

Erica O'Briant --adispenza, Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:59:14 -0500 reply
I agree with you in that I would prefer to read a book than an article online. I would hate to read a novel online. First it would hurt my eyes and could not take it with me. However, I have not handwritten a paper since I was in junior high school. I think if I had to write a handwritten paper now it would be awful and take me a lot of time.

Christina Malcomb --sbaldwin, Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:08:40 -0500 reply
Christina: Is handwriting necessarily more cumbersome or is it that we are now less used to it (vs. a time where people used handwriting daily in all practices)? It would be interesting to measure the actual movements involved in handwriting and computer-typing the same sentence, as a way of evaluating the physical effort of each. Of course, if we accept that its true and we do type faster than we write, is this good? We value taking time and thought, and so on...

Jennifer Habina --sbaldwin, Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:14:02 -0500 reply
It's interesting to see that you're conflicted on this. Why would you like to handwrite more often? What advantage would that bring? Second, you suggest that the computer prevents this. It's almost like we can't go back! How does the computer do this?

Erica Reib --sbaldwin, Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:25:52 -0500 reply
Erica: I think you're right that the issue is how deeply immersed technologies are in our lives. Do you think that there is an alternative, I mean, can we - have people ever? - live lives not structured and framed by "naturalized" technologies? Another thought: You end your response insisting on the need for good grammar and usage. What does this hold in place? I mean, you've said if we don't use it havoc will result. Is this true? What sort of havoc?

Michael L. Withrow --sbaldwin, Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:51:35 -0500 reply
Michael: If we accept that paper and pencil/pen will remain around - and I suppose no one would suggest that they would totally disappear - isn't the question whether digital technology will become dominant? I mean, older forms always stick around - we still have paper as well as typewriters, we even have chalk, and so on. Most of the things you point out do make sense, at least at the current time; yes, people do prefer hard copy. But as you note, that's only a generational thing - twenty or more years ago it wasn't an issue, there was not thought of turning in computer-based essays. So, to what degree are we in a transitional period? How strictly do we need hard copy? (And why?)

James McCeney? --sbaldwin, Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:06:01 -0500 reply
James: It's interesting that you hadn't seen the connection between handwriting and the computer; they're versions of the same thing. But this proves Baron's point about technology disappearing and becoming naturalized for us. I wonder, though, why personal communications will remain written? What is it about handwriting (pen, paper, etc.) that makes it personal? It's not like we made the pen or the paper.

Jeff Bowers --sbaldwin, Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:09:28 -0500 reply
Jeff: I agree that we think handwriting has something special about it, but is this true (does it)? Or is it just that we think this? And, if so, couldn't our thinking change? Your response affirms that we think it but doesn't really pin down this something special - I wonder if it's not possible to pin it down? You refer to expression and say that handwriting is more expressive, words processors less so. Is this true? What makes handwriting more expressive? (Aren't we taught to make our writing readable and clear, not expressive?

Alison Daly --sbaldwin, Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:48:41 -0500 reply
Alison: I agree that it's hard to be categorical that one is better than the other. We may see one better for certain things, and we may see that a certain time period favors one over the other.... I think your point about writing being intended for someone to see is a good one: it brings in audience, and the fact that the meaning of a writing is in large part constituted by the audience for the writing. As audiences for digital writing increase, so will the meaning and expression of digital writing.

Patrick Brooks --sbaldwin, Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:57:00 -0500 reply
Patrick: In your response, you generally support the idea that email is replacing the letter, and that other forms of writing - e.g. the personal check - are becoming increasingly digitized. In all this, what will remain, i.e. in 20 years or so what will still remain "written"? Also, what issues do you see? What problems will arise from digitizing pay stubs, bills, bank statements, for example?

Erica O'Briant --sbaldwin, Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:31:38 -0500 reply
Erica: Your response confirms Baron's assertion about the way writing tools are "naturalized." Certainly, the pencil is an example of this - of course there were ealier and previous writing tools that the pencil supplanted. It's hard to see a time "before writing." Its more that we see a history and sequence of ways of writing. Thinking of reading a book rather than reading off a screen: can you describe the difference it makes for you? What advantages does the book bring, for you?

Brittany Swisher --sbaldwin, Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:56:51 -0500 reply
Brittany: Your response shows that you are confident in the movement from print to computer. What, if anything, do you think will remain printed? Are there some things we need in this way? Or will printed objects be purely oddities, antiques?

Kim Miller --sbaldwin, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:51:34 -0500 reply
Kim: In your response, you talk about how it's become easier and quicker to write with a computer, harder and more time-consuming to write by hand. Doesn't this show what Baron's means by technology becoming "naturalized"? Easier/harder or quicker/time-consuming are aspects of our physical being and relation to material objects, but Baron is showing that these aspects and relations aren't fixed but change over time. Our habits and physical capabilities are subject to training and modification through the technologies of our environment.

Kristen Crestfield --sbaldwin, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:33:27 -0500 reply
Kristen: In your response, you confirm the shift to the computer and your general sense that this is inevitable and comfortable for you. Of course, this whole discussion relies on a sense of transformation, i.e. an argument like: "Things were this way and now they're this way." But perhaps it's all the same? I mean, we send messages using symbols (language). I notice how much of the latest technology is more "analog" than digital; I'm thinking here of photos on cellphones or of myspace/facebook with their emphasis on social interactions. Not to say that these aren't digital but that they emphasize the human and immediate aspects of the technology.

April Marrara --sbaldwin, Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:48:54 -0500 reply
April: Good point about how this debate is built on how we associate thought and movement, habit and muscle memory. We might want to make some effort with some things, for the sake of memory. On the other hand, we could see how the push to make everything easy and fast would diminish or even end the role of our body in memorizing and experiencing. Along with the co-adaption you point to at the end of your response, is the constant question of whether adaptation could go wrong or at lest lead to negative consequences.