# Ideals of the Past



## SueC (Dec 18, 2018)

I have, as probably most of you have, watched some documentaries on the past events in the United States on television, usually PBS productions. I have always been intrigued by some of the narratives, which include re-reading letters from slaves, or farmers or some other supposedly uneducated groups, reflecting opinions and observations. The letters are universally poignant and beautiful and striking in their ability to recreate and provide a vision of the landscape set before the author.

In this account from a poor farmer living in Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl, a letter sent to Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, July 26 1935, the visions are clear and so excellently described:

"Dust to eat, and dust to breathe and dust to drink. Dust in the beds and in the flour bin, on dishes and walls and windows, in hair and eyes and ears and teeth and throats, to say nothing of the heaped up accumulation on floors and window sills after one of the bad days.

"Meanwhile the longing for rain has become almost an obsession. We remember the gentle all-night rains that used to make a grateful music on the shingles close above our heads, or the showers that came just in time to save a dying crop. We recall the torrents that occasionally burst upon us in sudden storms, making our level farm a temporary lake where only the ducks felt at home. We dream of the faint gurgling sound of dry soil sucking in the grateful moisture of the early or the later rains; of the fresh green of sprouting wheat or barley, the reddish bronze of springing rye. But we waken to another day of wind and dust and hopes deferred, of attempts to use to the utmost every small resource, to care for the stock and poultry as well as we can with our scanty supplies, to keep our balance and to trust that upon some happier day our wage may even yet come in."

My question - why can we not write like this? I know I am assuming a lot here, but I am considering that the author of this letter - which in full is quite lengthy - being a farmer, may not be as educated as we are in the written word. But the picture he paints is so clear, so lovely and compelling, it almost looks easy. And I imagine it was for him. He wanted to communicate how his life was changed, how he was struggling, and his words are now part of history.

Are this farmer's words really that good, or is it because we simply don't expect history's words to be well-written and we are surprised to find something like this done so well. Have we somehow taken a step backward, in that we have to struggle long and hard to hone our skill, in order to be able to describe our environment as well as this land-worker did? Thoughts?

http://www.okreadsok.org/sixpack/secondsixpack/lettersfromdustbowl/dustbowlexcerpt.html


----------



## pyroteqnix (Dec 18, 2018)

I like to see great writing as 'moments of angelic possession', if I borrow a phrase. 
Some people can have the greatest education, yet their writing is as stiff as a board.
Others, like our farmer friend, can have little to no education yet his work is fluid and meaningful, and can craft an image in anyone's mind.
I think its rather nonsensical to see writing as the sum of your education, so a better analogy may be that of a 'Noble thinker' and their 'Secretary'. (Getting a bit vague here, but bear with me for a moment).

The dictation is observed and written down by the secretary, and that what determines the quality of writing.
If we follow this trend of thinking, it may be like that with all genius; only in many cases the person is more or less conscious with his genius, and strives eternally to make himself a worthier instrument for it. The clever man, the 'man of talent', shuts out his genius by setting his conscious will as a positive entity. The true man of genius would deliberately subordinate himself, reducing himself to a negative, and allows his genius to play through him as it will. We all know how stupid we are when we try to do things.

There's not a lot we can do to improve our artistic genius, but the genius needs his mind, but he can broaden it; fertilize it with all kinds of knowledge and experience which can improve its power of expression. 
Supply it with an orchestra, in short, instead of a tin whistle.

In summary, I feel that our best writing stems from our deep feelings and attachments. The closer we get to them, the more genuine and natural your work could be. That's how I operate at least!


----------



## SueC (Dec 18, 2018)

Pyro, really loved your response, and I agree with you. Sometimes, I think if we just submerse ourselves in "the moment" our reporting techniques would be simply awesome. I am a basically uneducated person (by today's standards, anyway) who loves words and writing and evoking emotions. I have often felt uncomfortable because I am not more educated and have so little to my credit. But when I read these old missives, from people so involved and full of feeling, I am encouraged! And welcome to you - I see you are a newcomer. Thanks again, Pyro - lovely post.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 18, 2018)

You gotta remember that those were the days of letters.  People took pride in their ability to write a good letter.  Some letter writers were famous...they were like the Indies of their day.  Great men wrote letters that were kept in museums, so for the ordinary man to be able to pen a letter was a mark of distinction.  A letter writer may have spent a week preparing their mailing.

It was a different era, before email and twitter and text twerking and all that cellular stuff cheapened it.  
Video killed the radio star.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 19, 2018)

SueC said:


> Are this farmer's words really that good, or is it because we simply don't expect history's words to be well-written and we are surprised to find something like this done so well. Have we somehow taken a step backward, in that we have to struggle long and hard to hone our skill, in order to be able to describe our environment as well as this land-worker did? Thoughts?
> 
> http://www.okreadsok.org/sixpack/secondsixpack/lettersfromdustbowl/dustbowlexcerpt.html



The good old days often _seem_ like a halcyon era for literature, until one takes into account that most people were pretty uneducated and a good chunk of them (even in the 1930's...) were still either completely or functionally illiterate. If one takes into account their "output" - and we have to, if we are going to try to make an honest assessment - then the premise that society back then was endowed with with eloquence instantly becomes a lot more complex. Just because _some_ farmers were able to express themselves well in written form doesn't mean it was at all commonplace. Just like now.Essentially we judge the past by a highlight reel.

As far as your question: You can write like that, if you want to. Personally, though, I'm not sold it would be an improvement over modern writing. Are the farmer's words really that good? Depends. They are certainly competent. They are also much wordier, fussier, than "modern writing" tends to be, but more words does not equal better. The message while clear enough does not contain anything I find especially persuasive. So yes, it's decent, but from a technical point of view I see nothing there that makes it objectively _better _than any averagely persuasive Facebook post. Maybe a better question is what has this kind of excerpt got that our modern writing lacks that makes it seem of a higher quality? To me its less that the writing is good and more that it is simply a product of its time a sweet reminder from a simpler era we tend to heavily romanticize...for reasons that while well-motivated may not be based on what that world was actually like.


----------



## Guard Dog (Dec 19, 2018)

SueC said:


> I have, as probably most of you have, watched some documentaries on the past events in the United States on television, usually BBC productions. I have always been intrigued by some of the narratives, which include re-reading letters from slaves, or farmers or some other supposedly uneducated groups, reflecting opinions and observations. The letters are universally poignant and beautiful and striking in their ability to recreate and provide a vision of the landscape set before the author.



Shouldn't come as any surprise to you that I have spent and still spend quite a bit of time watching documentaries of all sorts. And also, due to that, am quite certain that we've lost a great deal of... something... that those in the past had.

I can only hope that eventually, people will look back, figure it out, and decide it's time to reclaim that elusive 'whatever it was'.

Not gonna hold my breath waiting though, given how things are currently going.



G.D.


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 19, 2018)

SueC said:


> My question - why can we not write like this? I know I am assuming a lot here, but I am considering that the author of this letter - which in full is quite lengthy - being a farmer, may not be as educated as we are in the written word. But the picture he paints is so clear, so lovely and compelling, it almost looks easy. And I imagine it was for him. He wanted to communicate how his life was changed, how he was struggling, and his words are now part of history.
> 
> Are this farmer's words really that good, or is it because we simply don't expect history's words to be well-written and we are surprised to find something like this done so well. Have we somehow taken a step backward, in that we have to struggle long and hard to hone our skill, in order to be able to describe our environment as well as this land-worker did? Thoughts?



I suspect that as a child, when not engaged on chores there wasn't a whole lot for this would-be Depression-era farmer to do other than read. That's why we have such a responsibility as writers, as parents, as people. That's why I go so hard on people (including myself) about grammar and writing quality, because neither do I want to see this stuff die. To me, this farmer's words seem comparable to many well-read people of today, and perhaps even better in some cases.


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 19, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> As far as your question: You can write like that, if you want to. Personally, though, I'm not sold it would be an improvement over modern writing. Are the farmer's words really that good? Depends. They are certainly competent. They are also much wordier, fussier, than "modern writing" tends to be, but more words does not equal better. The message while clear enough does not contain anything I find especially persuasive. So yes, it's decent, but from a technical point of view I see nothing there that makes it objectively _better _than any averagely persuasive Facebook post. Maybe a better question is what has this kind of excerpt got that our modern writing lacks that makes it seem of a higher quality? To me its less that the writing is good and more that it is simply a product of its time a sweet reminder from a simpler era we tend to heavily romanticize...for reasons that while well-motivated may not be based on what that world was actually like.



For a long time I tried to be persuaded to the mindset that says, of modern writing, that less is better, that the overly wordy is dead or too fussy or what-have-you. But I can't do it, and I've no desire to any more. What I like about this kind of writing is the precision, the richness, the detail, the granularity of thought and observation that has gone into it. It's not just data - it's a lived-in, poetic verbal experience. It's a matter of taste of course, but to me, more stripped down writing seems meagre and dull by comparison in far too many cases. That said I would argue whether such wordiness has evolved out of us or become worth less (as opposed to worthless), just that it's less fashionable. I'm all for a revival of it but we may not need one. There doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all paradigm in writing. There isn't anywhere else: you still have swing bands, black and white movies, bicycles. It's just another way for some subset of people to enjoy their thing.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 19, 2018)

SueC said:


> Are this farmer's words really that good, or is it because we simply don't expect history's words to be well-written and we are surprised to find something like this done so well. Have we somehow taken a step backward, in that we have to struggle long and hard to hone our skill, in order to be able to describe our environment as well as this land-worker did? Thoughts?



The letter has a distinct voice—the narrator takes his time, makes a good use of triplets, and is expressing a clear emotional struggle: he longs for rain and hope in a world of dust and disappointment.

I'd say that's the beauty of it, boiled down to its most basic components. Of course, writing in a beautiful, moving way is always easier said than done. 

A lot of modern writers seem to put more effort into crafting prose that's meant to illicit a page-turning sort of _urgency_ in the reader, rather than prose that's meant to unfurl in an elegant manner. But there are always exceptions.

Anthony Doerr came to mind when reading that passage—he's an author who I find writes in a similar manner. I'm sure there are a ton of others, too. You just need to find them. :encouragement:


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 19, 2018)

*So Much Water So Close To Home*



bdcharles said:


> For a long time I tried to be persuaded to the mindset that says, of modern writing, that less is better, that the overly wordy is dead or too fussy or what-have-you. But I can't do it, and I've no desire to any more. What I like about this kind of writing is the precision, the richness, the detail, the granularity of thought and observation that has gone into it. It's not just data - it's a lived-in, poetic verbal experience. It's a matter of taste of course, but to me, more stripped down writing seems meagre and dull by comparison in far too many cases.




It's definitely a matter of taste but I do think people are far to quick to dismiss modern styles. It's like when you mention modern art and people automatically think of unmade beds or cups of paint thrown at canvases. As a species it seems we have a natural predilection in favor of seeing the best in the old and the worst in the new. 


Consider a writer like Raymond Carver, who is nothing if not "stripped down" and probably the daddy of the kind of literature you are describing: Is the below, from "So Much Water So Close To Home", not precise? Not detailed? Not thoughtful? Is this not a "lived-in, poetic verbal experience"? As a piece of descriptive prose is this not actually just as vivid as the dust bowl farmer's?




> _The casket is closed and covered with floral sprays. The organ starts up the minute I take a seat. People are coming in and finding chairs. There’s a boy in flared pants and a yellow short-sleeved shirt. A door opens and the family comes in in a group and moves over to a curtained place off to one side. Chairs creak as everybody gets settled. Directly, a nice blond man in a nice dark suit stands and asks us to bow our heads. He says a prayer for us, the living, and when he finishes, he says a prayer for the soul of the departed._
> _Along with the others I go past the casket. Then I move out onto the front steps and into the afternoon light. There’s a woman who limps as she goes down the stairs ahead of me. On the sidewalk she looks around._




Of course comparing Carver to a farmer isn't a fair comparison....but that's sort of the point. A good writer (or even a mediocre one) should be able to make any style of writing work. Ultimately it's all window dressing anyway. Bullshit is bullshit no matter how it is written.




bdcharles said:


> That said I would argue whether such wordiness has evolved out of us or become worth less (as opposed to worthless), just that it's less fashionable. I'm all for a revival of it but we may not need one. There doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all paradigm in writing. There isn't anywhere else: you still have swing bands, black and white movies, bicycles. It's just another way for some subset of people to enjoy their thing.



I'm sure there will be a revival of it at some point. There is of most things. Even on an individual level, most of us go through a phase of "writing purple", usually when we are younger and trying to achieve a sophisticated voice. Most of us also go through a phase of minimalism too. 

The main thing is it isn't terribly important. Most writers are not able to write with consistent authenticity in the voice of a depression-era dust bowl farmer anymore than they are able to write as Hunter S. Thompson, or a 22nd century automaton for that matter. You don't get to pick and choose what you want to sound like and still write honestly.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 20, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> That said I would argue whether such wordiness has evolved out of us or become worth less (as opposed to worthless), just that it's less fashionable.



I think it's a product of today's entertainment-rich, writer-laden era.

Modern writers have to compete with other forms of media, as well as other authors—so hooking the reader has become one of the main priorities. And if the writer is thinking first and foremost about hooking the reader, then the prose is likely going to become more compact. More choppy. With more emphasis on punchy verbs and physical sensations, and less emphasis on things like poeticism and unhurried description.

Still, writers who embrace that more ponderous, elegant style of prose still exist. Just look at the Literary Fiction section of any library or bookstore.

But also notice how unpopular (and how sparse) those Lit. Fic. sections tends to be, compared to, say, the Teen Fiction or Mystery/Thriller aisles.


----------



## Dluuni (Dec 20, 2018)

I'd say it has to do with time compression from capitalism. Back then, they had time to outline and draft to get it right before sending it out, and they only sent a few messages. Now I have to account for my time in 15 minute blocks in Google Calendar if I want to eat.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 20, 2018)

Those bits of history that are presented today in documentaries are the best bits. Who would choose a poorly written letter for presentation in a documentary? But the poorly written, or just plain boring, ones probably outnumbered the poetic ones by a large margin. The samples we see are not representative of the typical letters of the day for any period in history.

I think it's true that many people from a few generations ago were more skilled at letter writing than are people today because it was the common form for its time. Once supplanted by telephones and the other myriad forms of communication in the years since, our ability and desire to express ourselves well has atrophied. The pace of life in this new age has detracted from the time available to focus on the craft of letter writing. #Sad


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 20, 2018)

I wrote a reply, but it vanished instead of posting, so take two.

To paraphrase what I wrote a minute ago, the modern equivalents are blogging and vlogging. Some are quality, and some are clearly amateur. But I've seen some great how-to videos that rival professionally produced ones. Some folks have a knack to do things outside of their speciality well. Not all, mind you, but some.

So in the future the best ones may end up on documentaries.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 21, 2018)

Terry D said:


> I think it's true that many people from a few generations ago were more skilled at letter writing than are people today because it was the common form for its time. Once supplanted by telephones and the other myriad forms of communication in the years since, our ability and desire to express ourselves well has atrophied. The pace of life in this new age has detracted from the time available to focus on the craft of letter writing. #Sad



From a writing standpoint I wonder if it hasn't just been supplanted by emails, etc? Or blogging even, as Jack Of Trades mentioned.

I'm not saying they are apples to apples. Obviously there are practical differences between emails and letters, differences that, sure, would often cause any randomly-selected letter from yore to be of higher literary quality than any randomly-selected email from now if you were to pool everything together. I would guess much of this is based on the sheer volume and accessibility of the latter form: An email is faster to type up, send and receive, doesn't cost a stamp...so yeah, there's going to be less quality control in most of them. 

But what if we filter out all of the "sup bob come see me in my office in 30 bring ur paperwork..." type stuff and the cat pictures etc we use email for (things it was never designed for) and compare only the types of email sent with a purpose that is analogous to that of traditional letters from bygone times? Say if we compare an email sent now from a concerned constituent to their congressman or gmail exchanges from two lovers living in different countries - if we compare like-for-like between those are we quite sure the quality of communication has atrophied as opposed to simply changed and become drowned out by the chaff? 

I accept letter writing as a form has become less common. Certainly in everyday life (we do have telephones of course), and that less use tends to mean standards drop...but I am often amazed by how much really very good "letter-esque" compositions I see nowadays all over and in the darnedest of places and from people who don't seem to have much training or skill, just like Sue's farmers. Some of them are good enough I am quite sure if the modern references were tweaked, and the content transplanted onto a parchment in fountain cursive, it would probably be harder than one might think to distinguish the substance of new communicative writing from old based on quality. 

...Which would seem to indicate its not that people have lost the ability to write letters well, just that they showcase these skills less often - because blogs, Facebook, etc. A small but important difference IMO. Seems we are really talking about a difference in lifestyle more than in writing ability.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 21, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> ...Which would seem to indicate its not that people have lost the ability to write letters well, just that they showcase these skills less often - because blogs, Facebook, etc. A small but important difference IMO. Seems we are really talking about a difference in lifestyle more than in writing ability.



I think your last sentence there is the key.

Skills only exist from practice and repetition—they don't arise naturally in a vacuum. So someone can't just be "good" at letter writing without first writing a lot of letters.

And I think that was part of Terry's (and Sue's) point: the kind of letter writing quoted in the OP was a relatively common and oft-practiced form of communication in those days. So people had more of a chance (and more of a tendency) to get good at it.

These days, the average individual doesn't practice using written communication in the same way. (Sure, us _writers_ do, but how about the _non_-writers?) Back then, letters were (I imagine) looked upon with a fair amount of emotional weight and meaning, due to their slow, physical (and somewhat permanent) nature. They likely meant more.

Today, letter writing seems to be more of a casual, discardable form of communication.


----------



## Guard Dog (Dec 21, 2018)

Speaking of letters from the past, apparently John Henry 'Doc' Holiday kept up an ongoing correspondence with his cousin.

She kept all of his letters. However, due to the nature of those letters, when she died the family burned them.

I have mixed emotions concerning that. Because on the one hand, their private business is just that, but on the other, it'd interesting to know how he thought, and what sort of person he really was.




G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 21, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I think your last sentence there is the key.
> 
> Skills only exist from practice and repetition—they don't arise naturally in a vacuum. So someone can't just be "good" at letter writing without first writing a lot of letters.
> 
> ...



I disagree that no one is naturally good at anything. It might be a bitter pill to swallow, but some do seem to naturally draw, write, sing, etc. Perhaps they are imitating what they have seen/heard, but they don't need lots of practice.

That's not to say they can't improve. A tip here, a suggestion there, and those folks can outshine some who study doggedly for months/years.

Are the natural talents common? Doubtfully. But they do exist.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 21, 2018)

Blogging is writing, so the remark that writing skills are not being showcased because there's less / no letter writing is erroneous. Format does not negate content.


----------



## escorial (Dec 21, 2018)

Just finished reading it after so many years...thanks for the prompt...




Lot easier to write about it then living it..still good read


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 21, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I think your last sentence there is the key.
> 
> Skills only exist from practice and repetition—they don't arise naturally in a vacuum. So someone can't just be "good" at letter writing without first writing a lot of letters.
> 
> ...



The difference is I am not sure I agree lack of practice reflects on skill set in this case. Communication is wider than ever. Most of us send multiple "letters" every day in the form of emails, messages, forum posts, etc. I'm not sure why the skills involved in those have to be considered separate from the skills in writing letters beyond a very superficial level.

I look at it kind of like architecture. There's no question a Victorian Gothic manor is usually more refined/better looking/carries more emotional weight/etc than, say, some block of budget apartments built in 2010. Different purposes, different budgets, etc. An alien might well come down, compare a modern house to an old one, and think we have lost the ability to construct beautiful buildings.

But we all know modern architects now could absolutely redesign a building that is as technically and aesthetically pleasing as the Colosseum or Versailles if there was a need to. Whats more they could probably do it quicker, cheaper and bigger. The fact that they don't is nothing to do with their architectural skills having diminished (its the opposite) and everything to do with such buildings simply not being in demand anymore.

In the same way I believe people today could fairly easily "go back" to writing letters and I don't actually think it would be terribly difficult. Who knows, if the apocalypse happened we may have to. On an practical level I am sure having to deal with waiting three weeks for a response by pony express or whatever when we are used to waiting three minutes would be tough - but not difficult in terms of writing them and, for that matter, writing them quite well when needed. There's some evidence for this. Letters sent from overseas deployments or prison or whatever few niches there are still lacking technology - these are generally pretty well written. I have to assume this is because the skills of using words to communicate are not something that has diminished whatsoever: We are quite literally doing it right now. It's as close to natural as natural can be.

So what are we talking about when we talk about "letter writing skills", exactly? Like, what's majorly different about a serious and heartfelt letter compared to a serious and heartfelt email compared to a serious and heartfelt...I don't know, forum post...in terms of good or bad *writing*?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 23, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Are the natural talents common? Doubtfully. But they do exist.



I'll agree that there's a small percentage of the population that seems to learn extraordinarily fast (perhaps 1%). Those outliers that you speak of. Though I still disagree with the term "natural talent". To me, the term itself borders on mysticism.

Perhaps a more accurate term (or at least one I would agree with) would be "exceptional learner". It's all about the synapses—the connections made in the brain. One has to grow them through learning. Nobody springs from the womb with pre-set knowledge about _How to Write a Thriller Novel_ or _How to Maintain a Car Engine_, for example. These things have to be learned, one way or another. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 23, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> In the same way I believe people today could fairly easily "go back" to writing letters and I don't actually think it would be terribly difficult.
> 
> ... we all know modern architects now could absolutely redesign a building that is as technically and aesthetically pleasing as the Colosseum or Versailles if there was a need to.


I agree that it's likely still within our ability to write like the OP's example—I just think that we (for the most part) don't practice writing in that way.

The average modern architect has probably gone through enough schooling to know how to design buildings from either a purely functional or purely aesthetic standpoint.

I'm not sure that the average individual, though, has gone through enough schooling to know how to compose a letter with the same amount of expertise. From my experience, school focuses primarily on terse, persuasive writing. I'd consider the example in the OP to be more on the sensual, aesthetic end of the scale—the very kind of writing that the American* school system tends to beat out of you. :grief:


* I'm only familiar with the American school system, so perhaps it's different in other countries.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 23, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I'll agree that there's a small percentage of the population that seems to learn extraordinarily fast (perhaps 1%). Those outliers that you speak of. Though I still disagree with the term "natural talent". To me, the term itself borders on mysticism.
> 
> Perhaps a more accurate term (or at least one I would agree with) would be "exceptional learner". It's all about the synapses—the connections made in the brain. One has to grow them through learning. Nobody springs from the womb with pre-set knowledge about _How to Write a Thriller Novel_ or _How to Maintain a Car Engine_, for example. These things have to be learned, one way or another. :encouragement:



There is much we don't understand. How can a savant look at spilled matches and give an exact count in one glance? Was it something learned? If so, when and how?

And there's also many ways to learn. It annoys me when some preach practice to learn without acknowledging that poor habits can be ingrained that way. Writing a billion words that fail to clearly convey information or hold attention is wasting time and effort. And reading books in the genre you like can teach you much about writing for that genre. 

Some folks have a natural ability with spacial stuff. Others excel at languages. Still others have natural musical ability. And so on. 

I think it's kind of like the glass is half empty or half full. You see everyone born knowing nothing, with zero wiring in place. I see it as everyone is born with a certain amount of wiring ready to be used. It can be ignored and fall into disrepair, or used and enhanced. But it's not quite even. Some get a little more in some areas than others. Does that mean those who love music but need work should give up? Of course not! If I have to work a little harder than someone else to achieve my goal, then my reward is a little sweeter!


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 24, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I agree that it's likely still within our ability to write like the OP's example—I just think that we (for the most part) don't practice writing in that way.
> 
> The average modern architect has probably gone through enough schooling to know how to design buildings from either a purely functional or purely aesthetic standpoint.
> 
> ...



I think we are probably wandering into the hypothetical a little much at this point.

I have read the letters my grandfather wrote home from the trenches during World War One and while they are definitely of higher caliber in superficial ways (beautiful cursive writing for instance) they are not substantively much different from the ones my sister-in-law got a few years back from her ex-husband who was serving in Iraq. To the point I doubt you could tell which was the newer example, if the superficial differences were changed.

That is why I asked what exactly are we comparing, because in some ways I agree. The modern style of creative writing, especially as taught in schools, tends to be terser (some would say clearer) than it was a hundred years back, and we aren't taught much about how to write letters, and that is probably a bad thing. Formatting, certain verbiage, methods of address...that much has certainly been lost. No argument.

The difference is I don't think that stuff has much to do with anything fundamental. I think we see older forms as more sophisticated not because it actually was/is but because we tend to view almost everything that is old with that bias. There are plenty of examples of terseness in historical artifacts but somehow we don't equate, and I can only assume that must be _because they are old. _A haiku is as terse as it gets but few would dream of accusing the progenitors of that style as not being aesthetically-aware, or lacking competency, or any of the other criticisms that get routinely thrown around at "modern art".

...So is it actually the terseness that is the problem, or simply the lack of gravitas? Is it the writing that makes old letters better or is it the nostalgia that they evoke? Because if it is solely a difference in writing style, then what aesthetic power does a haiku possess that a well-worded tweet does not and why does only one get recognized as being serious writing?


----------



## SueC (Dec 24, 2018)

> I have mixed emotions concerning that. Because on the one hand, their private business is just that, but on the other, it'd interesting to know how he thought, and what sort of person he really was.



I agree with this. Sometimes, letters of the past reveal a person's most genuine thoughts, especially if they are considered personal correspondence. When my father passed away in 1997, eight years after my mom, my brother and I went through their home. I found a shoe box of letters my dad had written mom from the USS Topeka during WWII. She was also retired Navy, but was home to give birth to my older brother. I read every one of them, and found a man I did not know. He was a wonderful friend, son, and husband. He looked out for everyone, including his sister back home, who was caring for their father, my granddad, in Oklahoma. Dad sent mom a letter he had received from his sister, when their dad died - the most poignant missive I have ever read and even though it happened years and years ago, it still brought me to tears.

Anyway, I get your point G.D. I was frightened of my father most of my life (he was the disciplinarian) and was overjoyed to find he was actually a man of great honor and great love and I wish I had known him better. At his funeral, people from his past (he worked most of his working life at ABC-TV in Chicago) came and gave both my brother and I a picture of a man we did not know. They talked about him with high praise and it was lovely.


----------



## Guard Dog (Dec 24, 2018)

SueC said:


> Anyway, I get your point G.D. I was frightened of my father most of my life (he was the disciplinarian) and was overjoyed to find he was actually a man of great honor and great love and I wish I had known him better. At his funeral, people from his past (he worked most of his working life at ABC-TV in Chicago) came and gave both my brother and I a picture of a man we did not know. They talked about him with high praise and it was lovely.



That's the thing with Doc Holliday; the world knows him from all the tales and legends, but Mattie knew a whole different side of him than anybody else ever did or will.

...and now that part of history is just gone.

And no, it's not just that one particular person I wonder about. Examples like Ötzi the Iceman; who was he? What's his story?

We'll probably never know, even though his body and personal effects remain.

Seems a shame, doesn't it?



G.D.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 24, 2018)

While not directly related to the subject I am reminded of the TV drama series "Ripper Street" here in the UK set in the East End of London in the time of Jack the Ripper or rather just after. A characteristic of the series which puzzled me was that the dialogue was perfect English regardless of the characters speaking it. Contractions, both of words and syntax, were generally absent and anyone was equally likely to use what we might consider to be a somewhat sophisticated word regardless of their station in life. Given that the setting was the East End this was a far different portrayal of eastenders from the regular soap opera "Eastenders" set in modern times, which my angel and I fortunately never watch as just the accents and language in that are a pain to both our ears despite my own upbringing by south bank Cockney parents. In contrast "Ripper Street" was a delight to listen to. I have always wondered whether the writer of this fictional series set in earlier times wrote the dialogue this way to give it a unique character or was working from genuine research. It is also a noticeable feature of other period dramas that the language is more precise than our modern practice and this can't always be ascribed to the class of the characters portrayed. Why do script-writers do that, for authenticity or effect?

So, with our haste to cram more activity into our ever more frantic lives has the desire to clearly convey our thoughts fallen by the wayside or is that simply an illusion? Personally I often find that I get the wrong meaning from something that someone has said because modern usage of language is so ambiguous and highly dependent on context, which suggests a lack of adequate vocabulary or its inadequate use.

As to the OP about a farmer, there is apparently an island off Iceland where the farmers are all chess grand masters because they have so much time on their hands during the long winters. No doubt a farmer in the dust bowl would also have had time on his hands to spend writing high quality letters to impress those who mattered.

Trust me to present time as the key aspect as ever. Perhaps I should change my sobriquet from "Erratic" to "Time Lord" as I am apparently becoming so predictable.


----------



## Winston (Dec 24, 2018)

It is much easier (and universally entertaining) to write about overcoming a struggle that is real and relatable.  
The fantastical worlds that are being foisted as entertainment these days have stretched belief to it's breaking point.  IMHO, Sue's OP was an example of a universal truth that crosses our artificial boundaries of time and culture.  In this case, the truths of hunger and survival.  
It seems like there are so many out there trying to "re-invent the wheel" with layers of complexity that only turn off the reader.  Keep it simple.  Focus on the reader, and relaying the feeling to them.  
That crosses all genres and styles.  We had a saying in sales:  "People forget what you said, or even what you did.  But they never forget how you made them feel."


----------



## SueC (Dec 24, 2018)

JustRob, I have watched "Ripper Street" to the end, and like you found the verbiage extremely pleasant. I greatly enjoy watching British television or sitcoms (I love _Coronation Street_) but I confess that sometimes I find it difficult to understand what some characters are saying. It took me forever to figure out that "Ta" and "Cheers" were a way of saying _Thanks_, and sometimes it sounds as if they are generally eliminating some letters all together. (I wish I could think of a good example.) 

As far as writing is concerned, I do think generally we are less concerned about being precise. Maybe people who write emails or texts or even blogs, think that with mass communication, its not really necessary to be explicit. Sometimes I will read a phrase or a word in a book and have absolutely no idea what it means, but it's incorporated into a story and has to have some significance. So I look it up. In my OP, I was struck more by the author's ability to paint a picture - in today's time, one might think if you wrote about lack of rain, your reader would automatically know what you were talking about, so descriptions about how the lack of rain affected you personally were not really necessary to get the information across. 

I love the conversation - thanks!


----------



## escorial (Dec 24, 2018)

predictable time lord....JR....the federation will be concerned by your conduct..................


----------



## JustRob (Dec 25, 2018)

escorial said:


> predictable time lord....JR....the federation will be concerned by your conduct..................



Actually when I was contemplating writing a book about my strange experiences over recent years I gave it the working title "The Time Jester". Maybe Time Jester would suit me better than Lord. I mustn't get above my station.

That remark reminds me of the occasion when we stayed overnight in the Grosvenor Hotel in London. Looking out of the window of our room we discovered that we were directly over the platforms of Victoria Station. Well, the Grosvenor is a bit up market and only a short walk from Buckingham Palace, so maybe we were above our station then, although we actually went there on a bus from Charing Cross Station, so Victoria wasn't even our station. Now that is the height of rudeness, placing oneself above someone else's station. I'm starting to wish that I hadn't pursued this line of thought now. Damned stupid language, English. Wo ist schreibenforen.de bitte? Oops, pardon my French.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 26, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think it's kind of like the glass is half empty or half full. You see everyone born knowing nothing, with zero wiring in place. I see it as everyone is born with a certain amount of wiring ready to be used. It can be ignored and fall into disrepair, or used and enhanced. But it's not quite even. Some get a little more in some areas than others. Does that mean those who love music but need work should give up? Of course not! If I have to work a little harder than someone else to achieve my goal, then my reward is a little sweeter!



I'm not sure I believe that everyone is born with "zero wiring" in place. Though I do believe that everyone has a basic starting point, and we tend to develop more in certain areas than others based _mostly_ on what we're exposed to.

For example, someone who is said to have "natural musical ability" might simply been exposed to music earlier/more than the average child. What seems "natural" might simply be a product of the brain developing in combination with early exposure (as opposed to the more "purist" definition of "natural talent", which implies that the child was simply _born_ with musical inclinations).

But I'm not a neurologist or anything of the sort, so my beliefs are mostly just that, and there's probably a lot that I'm wrong about.

I think we at least agree on your final point—that accomplishing something, even if it might take some more work than others, is still worth striving for. :encouragement:


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 26, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I think we at least agree on your final point—that accomplishing something, even if it might take some more work than others, is still worth striving for. :encouragement:



Absolutely!!!


----------



## Guard Dog (Dec 26, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> ...For example, someone who is said to have "natural musical ability" might simply been exposed to music earlier/more than the average child. What seems "natural" might simply be a product of the brain developing in combination with early exposure (as opposed to the more "purist" definition of "natural talent", which implies that the child was simply _born_ with musical inclinations)...



I grew up in a house full of musicians and music.

Yet I have all the musical aptitude of a turnip. 

Love music, yes, produce it? Nope. Not my 'thing'.

On the other hand, I have a very high I.Q., and an aptitude for visual arts, mechanics, and geometry.

I can see, understand, and work out patterns and complicated systems quite easily... even though no one else in my family has the same skills/abilities/talents.

So... does that make me a mutant of some sort?

Or is it just the fact that I took an interest in, and studied such things?
( I could read and understand blueprints before I could read a book. )



G.D.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 26, 2018)

There's aptitudes and propensities. Those come stock. 
That letter in the OP ... about all that dust, I'm sure some academic at the time thought it was crap.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 26, 2018)

That letter in the OP was the one they used, No one bothers with all the really bad letters that were written, they probably got chucked on the fire soon after delivery. 

Musical ability? I was never taught music, our music lessons in school were a farce where the teacher ignored us and played the piano loudly whilst we did what we wished, he always smelt of whiskey too. This is all about to change, my daughter, the one with a first in classical music who is doing her MA in music therapy, gave me a tin whistle and an instruction book for Christmas, I am practicing in my shed at the bottom of the garden, not good enough for the missus to tolerate it in the house yet


----------



## Megan Pearson (Dec 26, 2018)

SueC said:


> My question - why can we not write like this? I know I am assuming a lot here, but I am considering that the author of this letter - which in full is quite lengthy - being a farmer, may not be as educated as we are in the written word. But the picture he paints is so clear, so lovely and compelling, it almost looks easy. And I imagine it was for him. He wanted to communicate how his life was changed, how he was struggling, and his words are now part of history.
> 
> Are this farmer's words really that good, or is it because we simply don't expect history's words to be well-written and we are surprised to find something like this done so well. Have we somehow taken a step backward, in that we have to struggle long and hard to hone our skill, in order to be able to describe our environment as well as this land-worker did? Thoughts?




What a beautifully written passage to share. 

As many others here have shared, I think our focus has changed. Earlier today I was reading an article on how organic dairy farms, once the financial refuge of the small dairy farmer, can no longer compete in the industry they helped create. Another family business—i.e., way of life—is disappearing from the American landscape. Fine prose, unless found in the literary fiction section at the local bookseller, doesn’t seem to have much opportunity to inform the way we live anymore. 

So, too, has fine prose disappeared from the bulk of what we read. Now I don’t mean, literally, what you might like to read, but what we all must endure in the advertising slogans, catchy medleys, and slap-stick sitcoms that make up the bulk of most people’s daily lives. Most people I know (sadly) don’t keep books anymore; their time is too divided with other things.

However, I think there may be a false assumption here on what passed for education in that era. For example, I’ve heard that in the 1800’s, through The McGuffey Readers, by the sixth grade a student had acquired the English proficiency of a college student today. Clearly, the 1930’s are some time after this. What the educational system was like in those days I do not know, although I do know we (generally speaking) tend to look back on prior eras with an air of superiority, (albeit little understanding), and poverty is not always a good indicator of one’s education.

As has been mentioned already by some others, the skills this dustbowl farmer put to use aren’t the skills demanded in the workplace today. If I am going to write an email at work, it had better be short and to the point—or I will be unraveling misunderstandings for the rest of the week. I find we are, in general, not as reflective, not as observant of nature or of how things work, and not as understanding or forgiving of ourselves as we were a hundred years ago. The advent of technological miracles in redefining us has resulted in changing how we see the world. 

The one thing that really stands out to me in this passage is the profound depth of human experience I find missing in much of what I read today. Beyond its beauty and art, this single quality is something we would do well to recapture. (E.g., tweets and Facebook memes do not ‘move’ me in the way this excerpt does—nor do I think they can.) Although, I am afraid that in doing so we would be propelling our work to those dusty backwall stacks labelled literary fiction.


----------

