Is Handwriting Worth Preserving? (Rewrite)

Photo taken from Julia Turner's Slate article, "The End of Pens: Is handwriting worth saving?"

Society’s digital age seems to usher in faster and better ways of communication, as well as the end of “the handwriting” era.  In her intriguing article, Julia Turner, Slate’s Deputy Editor and regular on Slate’s Culture Gabfest Podcast, addresses this new phenomenon.  She frames her points in the context of a book review of The Missing Ink (Philip Hensher), which traces handwriting across the centuries.  Turner explains how handwriting has evolved as cultures attempt to make writing speedier and more legible.  However, handwriting today is often replaced with typing on technological devices, which raises the question: is handwriting even something worth preserving?

Turner’s statements gain credibility because she wrote some of her article by hand (scanned, of course, into the typed computer article).  This imagery reinforces some of her main points by allowing her to show and not just tell.  Turner uses several different handwriting styles throughout the article, ranging from a print-cursive hybrid (handwriting Turner learned in grade school) to a completely uppercase, block letter font (learned in an architecture class; shown in picture), to the scribbled version of the block font (a style she reverts to when rushing).  This plethora of fonts reflects Turner’s words and effectively furthers her points, as they trigger reactions in the reader based on how Turner writes as well as their own personal associations with writing styles.  The contrast between the block and scribbled block handwriting reminded me of disparities in my own handwriting depending on the context of my writing, an appeal to cultural memory that really helped Turner’s points to hit home.  Turner’s decision to arrange the points in the article in a cause and effect fashion helps the audience to better understand what is being said.  For instance, Turner begins the article discussing her handwriting at a young age, and in chronologically tracing her handwriting’s progression is able to weave in specific points from Hensher’s book.  This logical progression makes it harder for her points to be disputed because they occur in such a natural way and allow her to build up evidence furthering the article’s central question.

Turner’s compelling evidence for both sides of the handwriting preservation dilemma render this question difficult to answer.  However, based on the effects of the different handwritings used in the article, I do feel it is worth preserving.  In allowing her audience (teenage and older Americans interested in aspects of culture and their evolution) to ponder this question, Turner successfully fulfills her purpose of convincing her audience that Hensher’s book is both applicable and interesting.