After Stefan Zweig had fled the Nazis, he established himself in
Petrópolis in Brazil. Once he complained against his friend Jules Romain that
weeks passed by that he didn’t receive any mail. Gradually Zweig had received
less and less mail, which was, so Romain, a way the world told him that he
wasn’t important any longer.
In those days letter writing was an important way of communicating and
the letters you received said something about your personal network and your
importance. You could talk with someone if you met him or her in person. Or
maybe you could call him or her, but most people didn’t yet have telephones in
those days. When talking or calling was not possible or when you didn’t want to
do it for some reason, you wrote a letter. I have no statistics, but I wouldn’t
be surprised if till not so long ago letter writing was the most important form
of communication that was not from face to face. It had been for ages so. Letters
were used for personal communication or for expressing ideas; or for both, of
course. Therefore they often give a good view of the time that they were
written. The letters written by the Roman philosopher and politician Marcus
Tullius Cicero are well-known and still worth to be read, for instance. Letters
were such an important way of expression that they had developed also into a
special literary genre. Epistolary novels are a case in point.
But nothing is eternal and so the art of letter writing is gradually
disappearing. People write fewer and fewer letters. Does this mean that people
are less in touch with each other and become more isolated? Just the opposite.
Today, maybe Zweig wouldn’t have felt himself so isolated and meaningless in
Petrópolis that he committed suicide. New ways of “networking” and keeping
contact have come into being. First, letters were more and more replaced by
phone calls, and then, it’s superfluous to tell it, we got the Internet with
its possibilities to send e-mails and with its social network sites. I can
write a lot here about this new way of communication and how it has changed the
world, but others can do it (and have already done it) better than I can. Yet,
for me receiving an e-mail is not the same as receiving a hand-written letter
with a stamp. By saying that, I am a bit a hypocrite. For not only do I write
more e-mails than I have written old style letters (“snail mail”) ever before,
but I write my “snail mail” only exceptionally by hand. Usually I do it with my
computer (and people who know me can assure you that I am still a fervent
snail-mailer). But, okay, time doesn’t stop and one has to take the best of
both sides.
I value a lot the arrival of e-mail and social
network sites (and I have “friends” there, too), so you cannot excuse me of not
keeping up with the changes, but like Stefan Zweig I receive fewer and fewer
letters, and I miss it a bit. The difference is, of course, that Zweig got
nothing instead, while I make full use of the new possibilities of the
Internet. But receiving a paper letter with a stamp that falls through your letterbox
on the doormat is different from getting an electronic version in your e-mail
box. It’s a matter of feeling, but then I must say: for me it feels so. It’s
true, snail mail contacts were often flimsy, but many Internet contacts are
flimsier to a greater extent. And will e-mails ever be valued that way that they
will lead to a new literary genre? A kind of digital epistolary novels? Maybe,
although nothing like that is known to me so far (I admit, it can be my failing).
Yet a first step in that direction has been taken. For what has been just
published in the Netherlands? The
Philosophy Twitter Canon: the thought of 43 important philosophers
comprised in the 140 characters of a tweet for each thinker. Brilliant
briefness or superficiality? There is no way back in time.