Re: Repeating -Reply

[cph@wiley.csusb.edu (Carol Haviland)]

Sara and Jon:  This is where rhetoricians can be useful (finally a place?)
as we reimagine the many texts we create and use.  E-mail is literally and
virtually a different kind of text than either speech or book/journal print,
but we tend to write it like the former and treat it like the latter.  I
think we need to think of it as a third type--with many variations--which
offers us much more textual richness and freedom than insisting that it fit
an existing type.  How might we contribute to that reimagining?

Carol
>Just that people tend to think of speech as ephemeral and writing as 
>permanent and that that's an over-simplification.  Those words that hurt 
>can stick for a long time. Sometimes, for example, things parents say to 
>children in a moment of anger can have a pretty profound influence.
>
> Writing something down can 
>crystalize an idea and give it a sort of substance but it's interpreted by 
>other people, incorporaated in other texts, and pretty mutable for 
>something that's supposed to be permanent.
>
>sara
>
>On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Jon Olson wrote:
>
>> What do you mean, Sara?  --Jon, olsonj@cla.orst.edu
>> 
>> >>> Sara Kimball <skimball@uts.CC.utexas.edu>  8/17/96, 11:47am >>>
>> [snip]  Think of how one can be wounded deeply by things people  say
>> -- there's a kind of speech that can be permanent.  And think of what
>>  people say about intertextuality.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>