Are e-mails letters?

August 14, 2004 10:46 AM

Do you consider email—or at least some emails—to be letters?
posted by kenko to (37 comments total)

I don't. A friend recently related to me her receipt of a letter. I asked her a question about it and she revealed it was an email. Shocking! Follows an inconclusive argument (I have an Amateurish Theory for why people might consider some emails letters), so now I'm curious as to how many people make this classification.
posted by kenko at 10:49 AM on August 14, 2004

Yes.
posted by dobbs at 10:57 AM on August 14, 2004

Job applications and inquiries. Also the more formal e-mails I send to my grandparents.

What is your amateurish theory?
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:01 AM on August 14, 2004

Depends on how long it is (the answer to many a question.)

If it's beyond a few lines it's a letter. If it's just a few lines, it's a 'text message' - with all the informality of style and protocol which that entails.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:17 AM on August 15, 2004

There are some emails, especially to close friends, that I can spend some time writing and editing. I consider those emails to be more like letters, as they contain the same amount of flair for writing and attention for detail I'd put into hand-written letters. And yes, those lengthier, personal emails are kept for future reading, much like a paper letter would.
posted by chronic sublime at 5:33 AM on August 15, 2004

Yes, I suppose I do, especially business letters, but in terms of personal letters, well, they're letters, but not as good: an email can never have the wonderful sensuous appeal of an actual handwritten letter.
posted by JanetLand at 7:06 AM on August 15, 2004

I think of e-mail as similar to a phone call where you leave a message on the answering machine. Asyncronous communication, that's all.
posted by SPrintF at 7:09 AM on August 15, 2004

E-mails are not letters. Anyone who thinks they are obviously hasn't written a letter in a long while.
posted by reklaw at 7:49 AM on August 15, 2004

Of course they are. They're written communications addresssed to a specific person or organization, the very definition of a letter. At least, that's so according to my dictionary.

The only sense I can think of in which an email may not qualify as a "letter" is the legal one. It's probably one of those seemingly ordinary words to which the law attaches ever-increasing complications.
posted by sfenders at 8:15 AM on August 15, 2004

Yes - they are.
posted by xammerboy at 8:28 AM on August 15, 2004

I consider all emails I author to be the next best thing to a letter, but I am aware the recipients often consider them to be something much less informal. Unless the email is a reply that includes quotes from previous emails or to a mailing list, emails I write could pass as letters. Proof reading, editing, spell checking and the like are part of my regular routine when composing an email. I sign every letter without using a .signature.

It's somewhat irritating to receive emails from people who can't be bothered with pleasantries. My younger siblings use email like a poor man's IM or SMS. It's hard to comprehend what they are getting at, even making them appear rude or inappropriate.

If you've chatted with me on AIM or on #mefi, you know I always type with capitalization and an eye to grammar, spelling and other such nonsense. Long time friends who get an email or an IM from me the first time often think I'm intentionally being formal or unintentionally being rigid or unfriendly. I've chosen to stylize my electronic communications and it's not intended to be a reflection of my tone. I sign all of my emails with my full name, which gets a "duh stupid i know your name" response from more than a few people.

E-mails are not letters. Anyone who thinks they are obviously hasn't written a letter in a long while.

What may be obvious to you is delusional, short sighted or patently false to others. I write letters on a regular basis, both of a formal and informal nature. You're posts are regularly a good example why I choose to take the time to write clearly. You see, I want to think your an intelligent person for whom I have respect. It appears that should be the case, but when you write, all see is an opinionated, lazy author with a tendancy for bluntness, lacking in any social graces. Then again, it appears that this is funny or cool to others and my criticism is hardly unique to just you.
posted by sequential at 8:38 AM on August 15, 2004

I think the convenience of e-mail has caused the art of letter writing to fall so far out of fashion it has simply (obviously) become the default mode of communication. As JanetLand said, there's definitely a sensuous appeal to real letters. I remember keeping my high school sweethearts' letters when we went to different colleges because they smelled so good, and keeping a friend's that somehow had been routed from GA Tech to Ho Chi Minh City to University of Flordia for quite some time because it was so odd. Here's something interesting I came across some time ago, a modern epistolary novel, maybe it can contribute or stimulate development of your theory, kenko. At the least it was a good hilarious read.
posted by tetsuo at 8:44 AM on August 15, 2004

I consider all emails I author to be the next best thing to a letter, but I am aware the recipients often consider them to be something much less informal.

So they consider them to be formal? To say "much less informal" is tantamount to a double negative.

You're posts are regularly a good example why I choose to take the time to write clearly. You see, I want to think your an intelligent person for whom I have respect.

You got your "your and you're" mixed up. No offense, but maybe this post need a bit more of that "time to write clearly".
posted by tetsuo at 8:54 AM on August 15, 2004

But a letter is something crafted with care and serenity - a quill plucked from the rump of the female Philippine eagle, whittled to a point by the finest japanese kitana wielded by a Kage rank ninja, dipped in the ink of the most elusive of giant squid from the seas of the antarctic, scribed onto the finest of Peruvian lambskin vellums under soft candlelight, whilst a dusky maiden gazes on, whistfully awaiting the return of her lover.

A letter is not something banged out on a crumb encrusted, letter-faded e-machines keyboard, displayed on a snot and god-knows-what-smeared, x-ray-spewing monitor under a migraine inducing flourescent light, with some family member wishing you would die and get off the computer so they can get on with wasting the rest of their natural lives playing some derivative mmorpg.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:03 AM on August 15, 2004

Perhaps it's just because I strongly associate "letter" with the physical object, as much or more than with the communication a letter accomplishes. FWIW, I (try) to start all but the most trivial one-line emails with a salutation, even if it's just "hi". I just don't consider them letters because ... well ... they're emails.

croutonsupafreak, my amateurish theory is that since letters have increasingly been replaced by other, more convenient means of communication for day-to-day purposes (email and phone calls being the most obvious examples), letters are now mostly reserved for either formal or important personal circumstances. Most people, I think, don't write letters just to catch up with people, or that don't have a rather specific purpose. So that when you write or receive an email that is similar in those respects to a letter—to an employer, say, or a love let^H^H^Hemail—it gets assimilated to "letter". But, it's not. It's an email. I think that implicit in the kind of attitude that classifies some emails as letters and others not (as telegrams [which are also written communications addressed to a specific person or organization, but aren't letters]? Shorter emails do tend to have a telegraphic style) is the idea that letters have some kind of prestige or at least formality attached to them, and email is inherently a lesser, more casual or informal medium. That's not true, though; emails and letters can be equally formal or informal.

(On preview: I hope it's clear that, despite what I say immediately below, I don't have the attitude Bluestone's parodying. I just think they're different though similar things.)

That, and emails can't be letters until I can use sealing wax on them, dammit.

You're posts are regularly a good example why I choose to take the time to write clearly. You see, I want to think your an intelligent person for whom I have respect.

Sophisticated irony, or merely ironic? YOU be the judge!

(Tetsuo beat me to it!)
posted by kenko at 9:08 AM on August 15, 2004

I consider emails to be numbers.
posted by bingo at 9:35 AM on August 15, 2004

Email aren't letters unless they're printed out to paper: the electronic media is diaphonous and impermanent. And even printed to paper, they completely lack the communication of variation in letterform.

My wife and I just went through our old love letters. They simply could never have been successful as email: the very script itself carries immense message, with decorations and adornments, variations in size and slant, scribbles and careful lettershaping.

A hand-written letter is far more communicative than typewritten form.

A good letter is a work of art in and of itself.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on August 15, 2004

Holy crap Blue Stone, I think I hurt something from laughing so hard.
posted by tetsuo at 9:55 AM on August 15, 2004

Sophisticated irony, or merely ironic? YOU be the judge!
I usually don't crack on grammar or spelling, everyone makes mistakes (I usually make a couple per post), but that one was just wide open.
posted by tetsuo at 9:57 AM on August 15, 2004

Yeah, like comma splices, for example.
posted by kenko at 10:04 AM on August 15, 2004

Email is a medium, as is paper and postage. You can write letters via email, but most people don't.
posted by majcher at 10:15 AM on August 15, 2004

Email is a medium, because it is neither rare nor well-done.
posted by SPrintF at 10:19 AM on August 15, 2004

Yeah, like comma splices, for example.

Case in point. I get nailed for that all the time. I really need to reread Strunk and White or something. Is it obvious that I'm avoiding any sort of compound statement out of embarrassment?
posted by tetsuo at 10:35 AM on August 15, 2004

But a letter is something crafted with care and serenity - a quill plucked from the rump of the female Philippine eagle, whittled to a point by the finest japanese kitana wielded by a Kage rank ninja, dipped in the ink of the most elusive of giant squid from the seas of the antarctic, scribed onto the finest of Peruvian lambskin vellums under soft candlelight, whilst a dusky maiden gazes on, whistfully awaiting the return of her lover.

That, and emails can't be letters until I can use sealing wax on them, dammit.

These statements seem to be meant as some sort of over-the-top irony, but to me they accurately capture the absurdity of the "e-mails aren't letters" philosophy. Unless you actually agree with five fresh fish that a letter must be handwritten (an admirably reactionary position), this is bullshit. If you print out an e-mail and stick it in an envelope, it's just as much a "letter" as if you'd typed it on your computer and printed it out. Whether it's any good is another matter, but there were plenty of short, badly written pieces of mail back in pre-computer days -- check any early-twentieth-century writers complete collected letters for examples ("B. -- Wheres my check?? W.")

Oh, and the idea that a "comma splice" is bad English is also bullshit. Strunk & White have some good ideas about style, but they're not experts on English grammar.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on August 15, 2004

Er, make that "early-twentieth-century writer's." I noticed the missing apostrophe just as I hit Post.
posted by languagehat at 1:02 PM on August 15, 2004

Can't we just call normal mail "letters" and e-mail "iLetters"?

That would keep everyone happy.
posted by Blue Stone at 1:51 PM on August 15, 2004

Oh, and the idea that a "comma splice" is bad English is also bullshit. Strunk & White have some good ideas about style, but they're not experts on English grammar.

Maybe, but I still cringe whenever I look back at something I've written and see the inconsistencies. Why badmouth Strunk and White? Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on grammar, and I'd guess that yes, actually he was an expert.

I'm with Blue Stone though, letters and iLetters, I'm going to start using that as common parlance.
posted by tetsuo at 2:07 PM on August 15, 2004

So they consider them to be formal? To say "much less informal" is tantamount to a double negative.

So, you have nothing to add to this conversation? To point out mistakes in grammar while adding nothing substantive to the conversation is tantamount to pedantic dribble.

Despite having spent a considerable amount of time writing and then editing my previous post, I missed these. If you were the professional your attitude claims to be, you'd note that an edit caused this mistake. (And if you had an ounce of respect, you’d have given me the benefit of the doubt about knowing what a double negative is and that “you’re” and “your” have different meanings.)

If it's still not clear to you, there were originally two sentences, the one below and one qualifying the informal statement. I decided it was wordy. Now, having walked away and read it again, I believe the addition of 'something much less' is still wordy.

‘I consider all emails I author to be the next best thing to a letter, but I am aware the recipients often consider them to be something much less informal.’

You got your "your and you're" mixed up. No offense, but maybe this post need a bit more of that "time to write clearly".

Maybe I don’t consider email and letters, which I both enjoy and take pride in writing, similar to preparing a post for you to shit on.

Since when does adding the phrase “no offense” to the beginning of an insult replace sincerity?

Sophisticated irony, or merely ironic? YOU be the judge!

If you haven't noticed, this is the green. Your snarkiness doesn't belong here. I did not intend to infer I put the same effort into a post as I do into an email. Instead, I was speaking directly to the style of comment reklaw uses regularly, which is similar to so many emails and instant messages I get daily. The truth is, I know reklaw is a thoughtful and intelligent person. Having not met him and only knowing him from his posts, I often get the impression he is exactly as I've described above.

I usually don't crack on grammar or spelling, everyone makes mistakes (I usually make a couple per post), but that one was just wide open.

If there were a way to annotate comments, I'd have appreciated your corrections. Since your corrections were in a comment, clearly worded to be snarky, there's nothing to appreciate. Here's some toilet paper. Don't forget to wipe.

There is an irony that is lost on too many professors that Elements of Style has become the defacto written English teaching aid. I feel lucky that several of my teachers encouraged their students to challenge the notions Strunk and White put forth. It only made us better understand the content of the book.
posted by sequential at 2:31 PM on August 15, 2004

Languagehat: did you read what I'd written before the sealing-wax bit? Of course, in the main, if you print out an email, stick it in an envelope, and send it, it's as much a letter as one typed up in word processor. And of course you can have completely trivial letters. I don't, as I explicitly said, deny the appellation "letter" to emails for any reason having to do with the letters being better or more noble or what have you than emails, because I don't think they are I don't even think that all letters must be handwritten (though all mine are and I like getting handwritten letters more than I do typed letters).

What I deny is that if you type up an email, and then don't print it out and stick it in an envelope, but rather send it out as an email, that it's just as much a letter as one you type up in a word processor. It's just terminological; I'm not passing judgment on emails here.

(Whether or not what you quoted of mine is in fact representative of people who deny emails the status of letters—because in that case it is a matter of status—I don't know. But since you did quote something I wrote to make your point, I thought I'd respond.)

And really, PGP is better at protecting the security of email than sealing wax ever was for letters.

Why badmouth Strunk and White?

It's what he does.
posted by kenko at 2:45 PM on August 15, 2004

When I was younger -- back before the Internet -- I was a big letter-writer. Long-distance friends and I used to send each other really long letters, sometimes 100 pages long.

Once we all got computerized, we started using email instead of paper. In my experience, there was NO qualitative difference, except that email was more convenient. The transition was seamless, and I still enjoy such "letters" today. I also still send letters via snailmail. I have a couple of friends who don't have computers. I don't notice any difference in my communication style on paper vs. on the PC.

And I HAVE saved many physical letters that people have sent me -- but I have lost others. On the other hand, I have EVERY email ever sent to me. In addition, I have every emial I ever sent. I don't have ANY of the physical letters that I sent, because I never kept copies.
posted by grumblebee at 3:24 PM on August 15, 2004

I used to write long, thought-out emails to a close friend because I believed she was worthy of my deeper ideas, thoughts, and feelings. Later I learned she disliked them and thought they were very odd. I also had the misfortune of falling in love with her during this time. I am no longer friends with this person.*

So now my perception of email has changed from the equivalent of a letter to more of an IM-ish, small talk medium in regards to personal communication.

*Yes, I am bitter. I have no one to write letters to anymore, whether on paper or as email.
posted by lychee at 4:05 PM on August 15, 2004

Nobody would claim that email is the same thing as a paper letter. But, it can still be a type of letter. It is, after all, composed of what we call "letters".

iLetter, eh? So, someone who writes iLetters would be iLiterate?
posted by sfenders at 4:09 PM on August 15, 2004

I write letters, postcards and email, fairly regularly. They all seem to exist along a continuum or web of communicative expression.

postcards: short, frequent, attractive, somewhat time consuming
letters: long, infrequent, somewhat attractive, time consuming
email: mid-length, rapid-fire, unattractive, not time consuming

I don't think any of these formats are the same as any other, but I use them all to communicate with the same group of people [with the exception of a tiny sliver of no-email people who are mostly relatives, and a small sliver of no-stable-address people who are not relatives] about more or less the same things.
posted by jessamyn at 5:09 PM on August 15, 2004

"Letter" is the content, not the medium. It's still a letter whether you write it in cursive script with a quill pen on parchment, pound it out on an old Royal, scribble it on a paper bag with crayon, or type it on a computer; it's still a letter whether you send it via fax, email, post, or carrier pigeon. The letter is the sequence of words, not the package that delivers them.

Email is a medium that can carry letters.

In short: what majcher said.
posted by Mars Saxman at 5:38 PM on August 15, 2004

Sequential, I'll tell you what, I'll do what noone else seems to do and simply apologize. I thought it may have gone a bit far with the last comment, but I was hoping you'd take it with a sense of humor, appreciative of the irony.
posted by tetsuo at 7:35 PM on August 15, 2004

The U.S. Government considers email an official form of correspondence, and I recently had a friend get his government email account subpoena'd - if that's not the same as a physical letter, I don't know what is.

Whenever coworkers go-off in email at work, I just mention my friend's name and they cool down.

FYI - because he wrote some messages dealing with the court case from his home PC, it was seized as well. Made me sit up and think.
posted by spslsausse at 8:08 PM on August 15, 2004

Why badmouth Strunk and White?

It's what he does.

Oh for Christ's sake. Just on the off chance anyone revisits this thread: I am not badmouthing Strunk and White. I like the book (I have referred to "good old Strunk & White"); I often recommend it to people. What I said was "they're not experts on English grammar." This is true. Back in Strunk's day, about the only real expert on English grammar was Otto Jespersen (a Dane), and White never claimed to be an expert.

Besides, do you worshipers at the shrine of S&W actually know whereof you speak? As I said elsewhere:

Will Strunk's original little pamphlet of 1918 was a charming thing, and White's 1957 revision was very well done and prodded a lot of people into tightening their prose and thinking more carefully about what they were saying; his subsequent versions (1969, 1972, 1979, if I remember correctly) updated some of the examples but were basically unchanged. However, after his death the thing has been rewritten by person or persons unknown (it's quite strange that the book gives no indication of who's responsible for the changes), and a lot of White's style has gone and a lot of political correctness has entered by the side door. For a full description, see the long review in The Massachusetts Review, the beginning of which is online here. If you're going to get S&W, I'd recommend (as with Fowler) getting an early edition done by the master himself rather than the bland new version. (The same goes, by the way, for The Joy of Cooking.)

I'm sorry this is all so complicated, but I figure you might want to know what you're talking about if the subject comes up again.
posted by languagehat at 2:16 PM on August 17, 2004