A letter from the front
-
I think he was also writing carefully, based on the knowledge that the letter could well be checked by the authorities. He wants his message to be seen.
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
I was only joking
-
I think he was also writing carefully, based on the knowledge that the letter could well be checked by the authorities. He wants his message to be seen.
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
You were warned.
-
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
@jon-nyc said in A letter from the front:
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
Maybe. When my kids were younger I read them The Wind in the Willows and Winnie the Pooh. Particularly in the first one, the language used was unrecognizable from that used in kids books today. Maybe that's because we understand more about children's language abilities, or maybe it's because we expect less of them.
-
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
@jon-nyc said in A letter from the front:
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
Nah, the trend still tracks. Compare (1) seminal novels written then vs today and (2) wartime novels that were quickly churned out vs today's paperback section.
Writing was dominant then. Not only did the average person commit more hours to practicing and improving over the course of their lives compared to today, but they also didn't have emojis, gifs, tweets etc. to contend with. Writing was what they had, so they spent the time it requires to draft more sophisticated messages.
Please love yourself.
-
I think he was also writing carefully, based on the knowledge that the letter could well be checked by the authorities. He wants his message to be seen.
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
I think he was also writing carefully, based on the knowledge that the letter could well be checked by the authorities. He wants his message to be seen.
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
I agree. I think part of it is that with a pen and paper, you had to think out what you were going to say before you went and said it. Now, very easy to type without having to worry about that.
-
@jon-nyc said in A letter from the front:
@doctor-phibes said in A letter from the front:
Reading what was written 100 years ago, I’m also always struck by how much more thoughtfully regular people expressed themselves than we do now.
Selection bias. The reason you're still reading it 100 years later is because it was well written.
Nah, the trend still tracks. Compare (1) seminal novels written then vs today and (2) wartime novels that were quickly churned out vs today's paperback section.
Writing was dominant then. Not only did the average person commit more hours to practicing and improving over the course of their lives compared to today, but they also didn't have emojis, gifs, tweets etc. to contend with. Writing was what they had, so they spent the time it requires to draft more sophisticated messages.
@aqua-letifer said in A letter from the front:
Writing was dominant then. Not only did the average person commit more hours to practicing and improving over the course of their lives compared to today, but they also didn't have emojis, gifs, tweets etc. to contend with. Writing was what they had, so they spent the time it requires to draft more sophisticated messages.
Much smaller proportion of the population was literate then, so there was a larger proportion who could not write at all. There probably were more obstacles then for people to acquire the skill to write and to keep on writing later in life. Thus those who kept writing are more likely ones who had stronger affinities to writing and took it more seriously anyway.
People back then, I believe, also put more thought into what they wanted to write before they actually wrote. Be it social convention or technology or pace of life in general, it seems to me among those who could write in the times of old were more willing to spend more time thinking per word written than we care to do today. And their audience, the ones who could read, expected that level of effort.
-
@aqua-letifer said in A letter from the front:
Writing was dominant then. Not only did the average person commit more hours to practicing and improving over the course of their lives compared to today, but they also didn't have emojis, gifs, tweets etc. to contend with. Writing was what they had, so they spent the time it requires to draft more sophisticated messages.
Much smaller proportion of the population was literate then, so there was a larger proportion who could not write at all. There probably were more obstacles then for people to acquire the skill to write and to keep on writing later in life. Thus those who kept writing are more likely ones who had stronger affinities to writing and took it more seriously anyway.
People back then, I believe, also put more thought into what they wanted to write before they actually wrote. Be it social convention or technology or pace of life in general, it seems to me among those who could write in the times of old were more willing to spend more time thinking per word written than we care to do today. And their audience, the ones who could read, expected that level of effort.
@axtremus said in A letter from the front:
Much smaller proportion of the population was literate then,
A 70% literacy rate by 1918 is not "a much smaller proportion of the population."
Thus those who kept writing are more likely ones who had stronger affinities to writing and took it more seriously anyway.
Uh, no. People wrote letters because that was the most (and for many, the only) accessible way to communicate across distances. They didn't write so many letters because of affinity, it was because for many families it was letters or nothing.
People back then, I believe, also put more thought into what they wanted to write before they actually wrote. Be it social convention or technology or pace of life in general, it seems to me among those who could write in the times of old were more willing to spend more time thinking per word written than we care to do today. And their audience, the ones who could read, expected that level of effort.
When that's all you have, you make it count.
-
My grandparents were of that generation - both of my grandfathers fought in WW1, but were of very different backgrounds. My paternal grandfather was a bit of a high-flyer, quite well-off, lived in London. My maternal grandfather was a more regular person, although a very gifted watercolour painter, lived in a suburb of Manchester. They both died when I was in my teens.
What I remember about both of them having in common is how much more careful and thoughtful they were than pretty much anybody you'd meet today. They would take time to express themselves, they had interesting hobbies, they spoke quietly.
Either of them could have written that letter. A sample size of two, I know, and time changes our memories of people. But still....
-
Also, if you write and receive one letter a month, you're going to make it a good one.
-
We have fabulous letters from one of my grandfather’s. I read one last night. It never would have been written today given phone, email, text and of course the other things to do than write a letter.
I also have read a number of letters from the turn of the 20th century. The letter from the soldier is not extraordinary at all in terms of sentiment, style and transparency. Its pretty normal. What makes it amazing is how rare it is today and how, like, art, it stops you in your tracks.
-
My grandfathers both fought in WWI. Both were children of Irish immigrants.
The were very different people.
My maternal grandfather drove an ambulance in the trenches, he lived to be 98.
My paternal grandfather got a leg-full of German machine bullets while fighting at Belleau Wood, he died at 53, I never knew him.
Maternal grandpa, for Boston College magazine:
In March 1918, we crossed [to France] on an old Italian freighter—15 days down in the hold. The bunks were triple-deckers and there were no showers. Every morning at four we had a submarine watch. My assignment was to stand alongside a life raft. The raft was thrown over, all the men got into it, I made sure they were all there, and then I got into it. As we neared Brest, we collided with a German submarine. There was mass confusion and terror. I slept right through it.
The Germans had the big guns then—Big Bertha. They shelled Paris every 15 minutes. At one minute to 12:00 you’d say an Act of Contrition. Then you knew you’d be OK for another 15 minutes. Once, the Germans came within 12 miles of Paris. The whole sky was illuminated from the artillery fire. They began to bring the soldiers in from the battle. My job was to pick the soldiers up at the railroad station, load them into the ambulance and unload them at the hospital. There was no light in the street. There were no lights in the houses. The ambulance couldn’t use lights. You’d wonder how the drivers were able to do it.
There was this woman who ran a fancy store on the Champs. She took a shine to me and Pat. She used to invite us to her house for a meal every Sunday night. The Sunday night meal was always lousy in the Army. After dinner, the whole family would escort us to the subway station.
Those [women in Paris] were nice to me. I should have written to them after the war, but I didn’t. At that age, you don’t care. You’re not grateful to people. You take it all for granted.
Having a smoke in Paris 1918
image url) -
Great stories and memories @Doctor-Phibes @Copper
-
My grandfathers both fought in WWI. Both were children of Irish immigrants.
The were very different people.
My maternal grandfather drove an ambulance in the trenches, he lived to be 98.
My paternal grandfather got a leg-full of German machine bullets while fighting at Belleau Wood, he died at 53, I never knew him.
Maternal grandpa, for Boston College magazine:
In March 1918, we crossed [to France] on an old Italian freighter—15 days down in the hold. The bunks were triple-deckers and there were no showers. Every morning at four we had a submarine watch. My assignment was to stand alongside a life raft. The raft was thrown over, all the men got into it, I made sure they were all there, and then I got into it. As we neared Brest, we collided with a German submarine. There was mass confusion and terror. I slept right through it.
The Germans had the big guns then—Big Bertha. They shelled Paris every 15 minutes. At one minute to 12:00 you’d say an Act of Contrition. Then you knew you’d be OK for another 15 minutes. Once, the Germans came within 12 miles of Paris. The whole sky was illuminated from the artillery fire. They began to bring the soldiers in from the battle. My job was to pick the soldiers up at the railroad station, load them into the ambulance and unload them at the hospital. There was no light in the street. There were no lights in the houses. The ambulance couldn’t use lights. You’d wonder how the drivers were able to do it.
There was this woman who ran a fancy store on the Champs. She took a shine to me and Pat. She used to invite us to her house for a meal every Sunday night. The Sunday night meal was always lousy in the Army. After dinner, the whole family would escort us to the subway station.
Those [women in Paris] were nice to me. I should have written to them after the war, but I didn’t. At that age, you don’t care. You’re not grateful to people. You take it all for granted.
Having a smoke in Paris 1918
 -
