🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from ihnp4!whuts!6243tes (Terry Sterkel)
 and was received on Thu Jul  3 08:22:34 1986
 
Henry Spencer writes in part:
> 
> Bruce Sesnovich writes, in part:
> 
> > Before word processors and electronic mail existed, important letters or
> > documents were usually handwritten and hand-corrected, often in several
> > drafts, before being typed and mailed.  The typing of the letter represented
> > a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out
> > communication. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could
> > necessitate re-typing the entire letter or document.
> 
> Most professional writers who have switched to word-processing technology
> feel that it has *improved* the net quality of their writing, by reducing
> the practical problems of revision and improvement.

To quote an overworked phrase "The Medium is the MASSAGE" (mAssage not mEssage).

I firmly believe that most commentators who take the approach that "technology 
is neutral, the problem is with lazy or incompetent people" miss the fact that 
when you change the environment, however subtly, you change behavior and sub-
sequently results.  That is the message of the the (in-)famous Hawthorne 
Experiments earlier this century.

I am embroiled in this discussion frequently over lunch by the resident 
software group who feel that "pleasant but quaint" mechanisms as 
specifications, test plans, structured development, dry runs, paper testing, 
etc. are artifacts of a by-gone age.  They would rather get on the terminal 
and hack, claiming higher productivity.  My personal perception over the 
last 15 years is that the quality and timeliness of software has been dropping
especially since timesharing programmer's terminals became de rigueur.

To take another example, I am (perhaps over-) familiar with the past thirty 
years of science fiction writers.  The new wave (last two to three years) is 
remarkably void of spelling diction, and grammar errors compared to novels 
of the fifties and sixties.  Unfortunately, the "clever turn of phrase" that 
frequently was a technical violation of spelling, diction, or grammar are also 
missing.  To pick on two examples, take Clarke and Anthony.  Compare Clarke 
of the sixties (2001) and Clarke of the eighties (2010).  He proudly proclaims 
his use of Wordstar (an early PC word processing software package) in the 
second book.  I fell asleep reading 2010.  The clean, lean approach has been 
bloated by mechanistic perfection allowed by word processing.  Piers Anthony 
(yes, a pseudonym) always been a high-volume writer pumping out four to eight 
serial novels a year.  His hallmark has been high entertainment (XANTH, 
OX/ORN, ADEPT series) or stabs at philosophy (TAROT series).  Above all, he was
entertaining.  He spent four pages in an earlier book explaining his work area 
consisting of a manual typewriter in an unheated stable.  In one of this 
latest books, he proudly announces the purchase of word processing which he 
used on that book.  The book reads as if it is a hacked together string of 
episodes and puns (the series was noted for its puns).  It was merely 
selections from earlier novels from the series, some puns, and little thought.

If you made it this far, you deserve a short wrap-up.

My message is that neither Clarke nor Anthony can be declared anything short of
masters of their trade.  If the introduction of word processing has changed 
their efforts, what is happening to us journeymen, novices, and *grade school 
children* who are having technology put on us.  To repeat "the medium is the 
mAssage"

--
Terry Sterkel	AT&T Bell Labs,  ihnp4!whuts!6243tes