I'm not so sure Andrea's caveat about 'better' works. There has been an
implied hierarchy of contact in this part of the discussion, with its apex
being two people in the same physical space. Underlying this assumption is
the puritan worry about authenticity. Andrea proposes a relativistic, horses
for courses view of mechanically mediated communications, and that's clearly
how we get on with things from day to day; but isn't there a basic, nagging
moral doubt we can't get rid of, no matter how we try? (The play and film
CLOSER, by Patrick Marber, spring to mind.) The web, after all, is a potent
part of moral panics.

I story edited from London a huge TV series which was shot in Canada. I
never met my Canadian counterpart. We did all the script work by e mail.
However, she would occasionally telephone me and tell me who was sleeping
with whom in the production office. I don't think this was just because the
telephone is marginally more secure. On the other hand, the very
ephemerality of e communication sometimes makes it seem more 'real'.

Why do people need a 'virtual, visual body', apart from a sophisticated
level of games playing, (and there's nothing wrong with that)? What, in this
context, is an avatar, and what subtextually lies behind that choice of
vocabulary?

Alan Drury.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Forte [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 May 2005 21:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [WDL] WDL: digital life or is it LIFE?

There's been quite a bit of work on the kinds of signals we use to
interpret communicative acts. The kinds of signals available online
depends on the community--email? A 3d virtual environment like
Second Life where I have a virtual, visual body?

Talking over the phone certainly provides a different basis for evaluating
a person's mood or intention than a text message and requires a different
kind of "knowing" that person. I don't think it's appropriate to use the
word "better" to imply a blanket value judgement - I think it makes more
sense to ask how knowing someone over the phone is different and what
*kinds* of knowing it supports better.

                        -Andrea Forte ([log in to unmask])

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Alan Drury wrote:

> I can't see there's any intrinsic difference to the sorts of relationships
> built up by letters and fax in the olden days. When I was Literary Manager
> at various places, I got to know a number of writers quite well by
> correspondence over their work without having met them at all. People,
> (myself included), say there's little subtext in an e mail, (the
implication
> being it's a glorified telegram0, but that's only because most are written
> at speed and the writer hasn't taken time to put one in.
>
>
>
> Do we know people better over the phone? Is it possible to get to know
> anyone by texting, and doesn't this question miss the point? (I see spell
> check doesn't recognise texting. Talk about ostriches.)
>
>
>
> Alan Drury
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sue Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 01 May 2005 06:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WDL] WDL: digital life or is it LIFE?
>
>
>
> I would add to Helen's examples my own of the trAce Online Writing Centre
> (originally Community) http://trace.ntu.ac.uk <http://trace.ntu.ac.uk>
> which is in its tenth year and has users in over 120 countries last time I
> looked. Many of us had a daily interaction online and then met up at
> conferences and events around the world. It has fostered some very
enduring
> friendships and collaborations.
>
> Sue
>
>