21 ms·
You're comparing highbrow literature reviews in leading magazines to short instant messages, which are a significantly different medium designed to be read by o
by pkage 5y ago
You're comparing highbrow literature reviews in leading magazines to short instant messages, which are a significantly different medium designed to be read by one or two people once, and then thrown away. Your best comparison is telegram style[0], which is not dissimilar to today's texts—complete with its own slang and shorthand. Nobody's writing "u up" in the New Yorker.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_style
- relaunched 5y agoI can't help but think that telegram style was more a function of the exorbitant cost and pricing model of sending a telegram. https://newatlas.com/last-telegraph-message/28314/#:~:text=In%201860%2C%20for%20example%2C%20a,cost%20%24100%20(about%20%242%2C600) https://newatlas.com/last-telegraph-message/28314/#:~:text=I.... Relative to wages in the 1860s, telegrams were very expensive. https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2016/10/where-the-money-wentin-1860/ https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2016/10/where-the-money-w...
- mwcampbell 5y agoComposing a text message on a touchscreen keyboard has its own cost. Not monetary, but still something to minimize.