, , , , ,

Whatever happened to letters?

[Letters] function[ed] as epistolary performances, […] an ‘act’ in the theatrical sense as well as a ‘speech-act’ in the linguistic. I use this theatrical metaphor in the sense that Bruce Redford and David Marshall use it in Converse of the Pen and The Figure of Theater respectively. That is, as a constructive and imaginative trope about the letter’s ability to make absence presence and as a way of articulating the paradox at the heart of authorial agency: the experience of both creating and viewing textual representations of oneself.[1]

I guess they got replaced with vidchat. Ah well.
People who do like epistolary goodness, check out Clare Brant, Eighteenth-Century Letters and British Culture (2006). Unfortunately, I have no access to it at the moment, so no doodle for you.

[1] Melanie Bigold, Women of Letters, Manuscript Circulation and Print Afterlives in the Eighteenth Century: Elizabeth Rowe, Catharine Cockburn, and Elizabeth Carter (Basingstoke, 2013), 14.