No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
A great deal of thought has been given to the effects of information technology on reading, books and printed material. Its impact on writing, the production of texts, which is, however, the counterpart of reading, has not aroused the same interest. It is true that witnesses to the act of creation are less familiar objects than books or newspapers: in spite of the passion of the media and the educated public for writers’ manuscripts, these remain predominantly the prerogative of researchers and are still rarely taken out of libraries and archive collections. In extremely literate Western societies, reading is an activity practised by large sectors of the population. The same cannot be said about writing as an active producer of texts, for this encompasses a much more limited group of professionals, and is thought, more or less, to require a special gift in its literary form. Written production is rather the hidden face of McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and the commercial businesses which manufacture and distribute writing in its printed form are better known to the public than the mysterious secrets of creation.
1. For a sub-field of this ‘rediscovered' written communication, that of ‘chat' on the Internet, see J. Anis's study (J. Anis, Parlez-vous Texto?), Paris, Le Cherche-Midi Éditeur 2001). However, this is considered to be a very specialized form of written production.
2. See, for example, R. Chartier (ed.), Les usages de l'imprimé, Paris, Fayard 1992.
3. Amongst the most important, we can quote in particular Pliny the Younger's Letters and Quintilian's Institutio oratoria. See J.-L. Lebrave, ‘Penser, dicter, écrire', The Romantic Review, vol. 6 no. 3, May 1995, p. 437-450.
4. See J.-L. Lebrave and A. Gresillon (eds), Lire et écrire au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècles, Paris, CNRS-Éditions 2000 (Textes et Manuscrits collection).
5. See, for example, the Writers at work series, published from 1957 onwards by The Viking Press.
6. See J. Anis and J.-L. Lebrave (eds), Texte et ordinateur: les mutations de lire-écrire, Paris, Éd. de l'Espace européen, 1991, second updated edition. Paris, CRL, University of Paris X-Nanterre 1993.
7. This characteristic of computerized text, always being ‘neat' makes it besides a very effective pedagogical tool for young writers, who often fall victim to the paralysing effects of crossings-out, which show in far too visible a manner their lack of mastery of writing. See, for example, Colette Daiute, Writing & Computers, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley 1985.
8. Such an investigation was carried out in 1990-1991 amongst professional writers, including several authors. See J. Anis and J.-L. Lebrave, op. cit.
You have
Access