In Jest: Medieval Letters v. Current Text Messages

On the Art of Text Messaging (or Principles of the Text Message) Through the Eyes of Generation Y

It seems appropriate that a rhetorician (ahem, moi) ought to examine current communicative writings by contrasting them to the medieval rhetoric of the letter or epistle. The definition letter, as put forth in The Principles of Letter Writing, seems fairly appropriate for the definition of text message: “a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender” (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 432). However, we can contrast and examine how the five parts of the letter have changed when looking at them through the lens of the text messaging genre. These five parts include the salutation, the securing of goodwill, the narration, the petition, and the conclusion. While we read about these components this week, let's examine each one in light of the use of text messaging, a common, nearly immediate form of sending digital messages primarily through the use of cell phones.

The salutation is rarely used when communicating through text messages. Namely because the salutation is already implied by the sending of a message. Though, when time permits, a quick “hi” is cordial. Still, any sort of long or drawn-out salutation is completely inappropriate for the text message because it may be viewed as a waste of the reader’s time. While the salutation of the letter in the medieval period characterizes a person based on social rank and personal manner, such superlative depictions, even in today's verbiage, such as “most phenomenal and competent of supervisors”, “my beautiful and dutiful child”, or “dearest of friends who incite feelings of comfort, sublime happiness, and utmost trust”, would be called brown nosing, not to mention a waste of the space allotted for the text message. (This case is also applicable to the tweet.) While the salutation of the medieval period was used to express feeling and opening greetings, communicators of today recognize that the quick, content-focused information sent through the text message cannot be read into too deeply regarding tone. If it was, many a text message would be viewed as negative and curt by virtue of its abruptness. After all, text messages are sent at nearly any time of the day and often out of the blue with a succinct, to the point note or inquiry.

In fact, considering the popularity of negativity (while not in my own nature but certainly heightened compared to the way rhetoricians of days gone by looking to expand upon the receiver's virtues loquaciously) and the encouragement speak one's mind, it seems to me to be a good thing that we do not characterize the recipients of our text messages. Why, with divorce rates as high as they are, a text message to a spouse might characterize him or her as “you lousy sack of suds” or “most nagging of all”. Children, who seem to perceive endless rights and possess a self-centered perspective, may feel justified, right or not, to start texts to parents with “ruler so unfair” or “[parent’s first name], why are you – so insistent and intruding as you are – texting my phone? This is my domain.” Consider the use of text messaging in the workplace. Physicians, all of whom are very busy, use text messaging to locate and/or question other physicians within the hospital. Imagine the havoc it would wreak if one professional who didn’t have a very high opinion of another or who was being caused to wait began a text message with “Name, you schmuckiest of schmucks”. It is, quite a blessing, I do believe, that the characterization in the salutation has been removed.

Humor me for a moment and reflect upon what would happen if we applied the same notions of superiority and inferiority discussed in The Principles of Letter Writing (see Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 433). Society is much changed, and any implications that someone is “below you” are very much out of place in a world that values equality. This is not to say that respect should not be employed; rather, it highlights our current tendencies to view each other as equals.

While sometimes a very quick salutation is used by those of the “older generation” (which is completely forgivable as they are not “with it”, and they still believe that some sort of greeting is necessary) or used by a bored youngin’ who has the time to insert such a greeting, is most appropriate to simply recognize that the salutation is implied in the art of text messaging.

We will only briefly cover the next part of the letter – the securing of goodwill – as it applies to text message. Why? Because here again this component of the letter is completely unnecessary in the text message. In fact the salutation and the securing of goodwill go hand-in-hand in the letter (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 437). But in the world of text messaging, such characterization and flowery explanation used to bolster the sender's ethos seems completely out of place as such developments of ethos ought to be done in other contexts.

In the expectation of our times, in fact, this blog post is getting much too long, and I fear that I might lose my reader’s attention. And so, I will reiterate the recommendation of the medieval monk Alberic when he said that brevity was a chief virtue (Bizzell and Herzberg, p. 430). Indeed, brevity is a chief virtue in text messaging. So, what the heck, nix the narration and the conclusion when writing your texts. Get right to the question, or as explained in The Principles of Letter Writing, the petition.

Ask your question and be on with it.


Disclaimer: This blog post may not be applicable to those who are twitterpated with love, doting and flowery Southern women in the habit of using pet names like “darling”, or for message senders who just wrecked the car and need to include a bit of goodwill-securement and narration.