A paper fortune teller, aka chatterbox, whirlybird or cootie catcher.It seems to me that the relationship between thought and expression has changed. Like most significant changes in human history, the change is born of technology, but its implications are far more profound. I believe we are experiencing a critical shift in how we communicate and thereby the way we develop and maintain relationships. The rise of cyber bulling, the cult of celebrity and the 24-hour news cycle are all symptoms of this revolution.

First though, let’s go back a bit, perhaps about 6 million years back.

Sometime after humans split from the other great apes, we developed spoken language. The complexity of these languages has become extremely complex and for a very long time that complexity was restricted to the spoken word. Written language only dates back to about 3,000 years ago and it was a real game changer.

From conversations that were limited to real time face-to-face interactions, we were able to reach each other across a much broader space and time. Even today graffiti exists on the ruins of such cities as ancient Ephesus and Pompeii.

Anyone who has had their teenage world shaken by the revelations of a paper fortune teller knows the power of the written word . . .

The development of paper made the transmission and storage of information much easier, but he power of information remained. Anyone who has had their teenage world shaken by the revelations of a paper fortune teller knows the power of the written word. The act of committing words to paper carried weight and for Beautiful calligraphy in the Book of Durrow (680 AD)generations it was the domain of the educated and the powerful. Producing records and books was traditionally a slow process, completed entirely by hand (even paper fortune teller seemed to be constructed only by a few – almost exclusively girls – who had been schooled in dark paper arts). This was the state of play for most of the history of written language. Even today we hang onto the idea that once something has been written it is somehow more important or trustworthy. “I read somewhere . . .”. And yet, today anyone can write anything – and have it read. Perhaps the simplicity with which we can commit something to the page (or the screen) should demand greater scrutiny or review, but more of that later.

The printing press was invented around 1440 and it was nearly 100 times faster than other methods of reproducing written text. This led to more things being printed and as more people became literate we saw profound changes in education and social mobility, not to mention record keeping, personal communication and advertising.

To religious tomes, historical and administrative records and personal diaries, we added pamphlets, newspapers, theses, technical manuals, novels and reference texts.

New methods of text transmission emerged, including mail coaches and railway systems, ballpoint pens, electronic printers, facsimile machines and photocopiers, but these were still based on paper-based writing. Communication in general was greatly changed with the advent of telegraph systems, radio, film, television and the telephone, but the next quantum leap for the written word was probably email. The arrival of electronic mail and the internet have re-energised written language.

A wonderfully retro photocopier. Image courtesy of Quasimondo.To those of us who love words, this is generally a fine thing. I cringe as grotesquely as the next person when I am confronted by some of the unconventional approaches to grammar, spelling and sentence structure that litter the online world, but I am generally thrilled that people are writing and reading, that they are creating and inspiring and provoking and analysing. I am fascinated by the evolution of text in txt messages and tweets, and I am intrigued by social media, which is essentially a pen friend program on steroids. However, there are less pleasant features as well. Look no further than the comments on YouTube videos, many of which seem to be very aggressive and personal. Many blogs and many reader comments thereon seem exceptionally - and pointlessly – vitriolic, although is there ever a point to vitriol?

The “thing” is, we are now part of a machine that not only allows everyone to express a view, quickly, easily, and frequently, but it demands that we do. The system has an insatiable appetite, but we are still learning what this means with regard to writing and interpreting. As I alluded to above, written words still seem to carry more weight than they ought, or rather the act of writing seems to bestow words with too limited a range of importance.

When Gina Rinehart writes a column in Australian Resources & Investment (a mining industry magazine that basically no-one outside the mining industry has ever heard of, let alone read), she has an obligation to generate content – to write words. In the past someone in this position might have been restricted to writing about, well, perhaps the mining industry. They might write less often, maybe even with less words, and they might need to undertake a more considered approach to their writing - one that reflects their expertise and experience. Today they can meet their obligations by writing across a far wider range of themes, moreover there is encouragement to write something provocative, something that will attract a response, thus generating more content and drawing more attention.

I’m waiting to see an unflattering cartoon of Gina as Marie Antoinette, shouting tersely, “Let them eat work!”) . . . 

I have not read Gina’s article in full or in context (I just couldn’t justify $199 to subscribe to the journal), but it seems to me that both what she chose to write and the response it received in some parts of the media (and today I note further responses to these responses) indicate that we are still coming to terms with this new(er) world of more words and more writing. Gina appears to have made some over-simplifications about the community, in particular the commonality of people actively complaining about not being rich enough and the likelihood of those within this cohort spending a significant amount of money and time in drinking in pubs with friends. Were her comments insightful? I doubt it. Does she have the right to make them? Of course she does. Were her comments of value to the publication? Only the editors could say. They have probably raised the profile of Australian Resources & Investment, but I don't know if this will translate to increased subscriptions. Who really cares though? Gina Rinehart giving behavioural advice might be comedy gold (I’m waiting to see an unflattering cartoon of Gina as Marie Antoinette, shouting tersely, “Let them eat work!”), but does it really warrant any other response?  We are all entitled to an opinion and the dialogue can be rewarding, but if we react as quickly and as passionately to every opinion (opinions that usually have little or no impact on us or almost anyone) it becomes white noise.

I would advise anyone who is about to write something aggressive and reactionary to write their thoughts out by hand, in full sentences with correct grammar and spelling, ideally with a quill and ink . . .

Image courtesy of PaulasofiasimoesI despair at the preponderance of opinion, speculation, commentary and gossip and the simultaneous - perhaps corresponding - decline in expert analysis, correct referencing, quality investigation, and genuine news reporting. I embrace new avenues for written language (for a class clown like me, Twitter is gold), new collaborative creative endeavours and increased opportunities to connect easily with others, but we are still toddlers in the online environment. We are still learning how to write what we mean, when to write it and when to simply shut up. We are still learning not to assume that someone is out to get us, to take a breath and perhaps give the benefit of the doubt (at least for a moment). I hope we are slowly getting better keeping out tempers. There will always be those who aim to provoke, but If we decide, as we mature, that explosions of vitriolic venting are simply self-indulgent, maybe they will become less common online. I would advise anyone who is about to write something aggressive and reactionary to write their thoughts out by hand, in full sentences with correct grammar and spelling, ideally with a quill and ink. I’m sure the world will be a calmer place (and the increase in the use of quills would be a good look too). Perhaps when we remember that writing is powerful, we will start to respect the act of writing and the reader a little bit more. Anyway, that’s my opinion, and I’m right.