In another era, though well within my lifetime, celebrities used to get cards and letters. President Kennedy asked his staff to pull every 50th for his personal reading. Betty Smith, author of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, noted that about a quarter of her fan mail was addressed to Francie Nolan, her book's main character, instead of to her. People took the time to form opinions and express them. Unlike Letters to the Editor that got selected for print, correspondence to public officials and celebrities remained private communications. Responses were few, but people still selected stationery from doodle pads to Crane's, pens from Bic to Mt. Blanc or typewriter, reserved time to express on paper, and applied postage.
Our electronics have transformed how we express our opinions to people of fame and influence. Pen and paper have given way to screen and keyboard. Though not exactly. Thoughts often organize better for later expression when outlined in a person's recognizable handwriting before composing sentences and paragraphs. Admirers and critics alike still target public figures, but what we tell them no longer gets shared exclusively with them or staff hired to deal with correspondence. A comment on Twitter intended as feedback for a VIP gets read by anyone. Responses are more likely to come from random strangers than from the influencer to whom the writer directed the feedback.
Because of the ease of submission, volume has increased. A censorship of cultural norms has yielded to bluntness, though that may have also been true when cards and letters came through verbal provocation of an Influencer on TV.
Mechanisms of contact have changed. Pre-computer, we did not know where celebrities lived. Actors got mail addressed to their studios, authors to the publishers. Our Congressional Delegation had published office addresses and an allocation to hire somebody to respond to constituent needs, if not opinions. In the early email era, people had accessible email addresses. their name or variant @ company or university . com org or edu. Major publications solicited feedback at the end of news stories. These could go into the thousands, created an expense to hire screeners to determine if standards of reader comments were violated, and largely disappeared. Individual journalists and authors now often have their own websites which invariably include a contact option.
Who is worthy of a response has also shifted. We never expect a movie star to write back, beyond maybe having a studio agent send a stock autographed photo. Academics and think tank representatives used to respond to me much more than they do now. Maybe volume, maybe pressure on time, maybe delegation of the response task. Perhaps my most interesting sorting comes from my own Jewish biome. As online educational sites became available, a lecture could be accessed, a question sent to the speaker, and a brief response suggesting that the query was read and understood would appear in a few days. The Orthodox and Reform officials invariably acknowledged my approaching them. The Conservatives screened me out or deflected me to my own Rabbi. They seemed to have some fear of undermining the hierarchy and authority of intermediaries.
Much of these dialogues of cyberspace have transformed again. We now have Substack. Subscribers can pay a monthly fee, which includes both wisdom of the writer and access. The Atlantic, one of my paid subscriptions, now has a comment section at the end of each article. Responses number in the hundreds. While a substantial fraction conveys impressions of the article, far more of these create a conversation with what the original poster began. Nearly all with a nom de plume of some type to preserve anonymity.
The role of correspondence seems in transition. In the written era, the cards and letters served as a vote up or down. The early days of email created more of a private conversation. Modern forums using platforms or feedback boxes at the end of journal articles seem to bifurcate. Some, like FB and Twitter, have become arenas for verbal combat requiring no expertise. Others like Reddit and Substack function more like communities. People of common interest exposed to identical material express to each other their views of what they read or what they had been asked. Those are invariably more civil than the arenas. Responders do their best to use their knowledge to guide a person with less familiarity or a valid but opposing view. Private communication has expanded to public engagement among strangers. Expectations have changed. In the paper era, I expected no response, in the early electronic era targeted responses, now more of a melee or gathering of minds, depending on the platform. Of the models, I have found the community of shared interest most appealing and most engaging. It has its limitations, but for me, when I have something to enhance another person's perspective or their expertise advances mine, we each do better.
