A telephonic conversation might be a reasonable alternative to an actual one, but is it really the next best thing to a face-to-face chat?
Some of the things that come to mind when I think of the utility of Graham Bell's invention include the sense of reassurance that swaddles my grandma every time she hears from my uncle who lives miles away; the strained, fast-paced trunk calls to the doctor in Bangalore that would assuage the anxiety; the glee of my aunt and uncle, grandparents now, as they listen to the rhymes, the precocious utterances, the tales of scholastic accomplishments and the dodgy, but ever improving, Kannada of their grandkids. Yet, despite these cheerful images, I am not a great fan of the phone call.
My main issue with looking at the phone call as a substitute to conversations bearing the aroma of the shared cups of coffee - apart from the immediately recognizable fact that speakers don't give out scents - is that the call doesn't allow for long pauses and the companionable silence, due to either the economic concerns, the fear of radiation hazards when using cellphones, or the boredom that manifests at both the ends. The cause of the latter should surely be the wires and waves that seem to distort the silence, which in the flesh is acceptable. This distorted signal seems to generate boredom at either end, after which, the wires and waves end up working as a feedback network intensifying the sensation. Eventually, once the threshold is breached at one of the pair of connected points, rhetorical questions begin to creep in. Or, futile attempts at enlivening the channel through stutters that reflect the mental turmoil take over, before the embarrassed ones bid farewell and hang up - a symbolic healing indeed.
Although the monetary aspect might have led to the introduction of the Short Message Service, or SMS, it is intrinsically capable of handling a conversation characterized by sporadic speech. Whilst enabling the instant back-and-forth that is as necessary, SMS also lets the chatter linger for hours, even days. One can sulk, go coy, attend to something more urgent and then revive the conversation, causing their pal's phone to beep, blink and twitch. And, much like a kid, who'd left his colouring book and pastels for a meet with his acquaintances from the toy world, returning to his picture to resume from where he'd left off, one may proceed with the conversation, safe in the knowledge that more often than not the colours that were last applied will still have been preserved in the in-box. Equally, the availability of the other right then is not even a necessity. One can say what he wants to and the words will continue to hover within a virtual conversation bubble till such time as someone reaches in for them. For the health conscious, typing in messages means keeping the phones farther from one's brain as compared to its location when talking into it.
The cellphone has made bluffing a wee bit easier, as well. You could literally be at two places. Yet, lying is an art, damned as it may be, for it requires an utterance and a cataloging for future reference, due to the penchant of every lie to procreate, and while the multiplication maybe acceptable, profligacy sure isn't. Every progeny must be purebred. So, if the white lie too can parch one's throat, then the SMS might be just the harness necessary. The sweaty fingers are unlikely to cause any ominous cracking of the voice that the reader at the other end will hear mentally.
Of course, the SMS has its demerits. The hundred-and-sixty limit means one has to either restrict himself, or risk sending forth a cascade that might not exactly be in free fall. Then, there are the judicious ones who try to fit in as much as they can by leaving out the spaces and punctuations which they probably intend to communicate telepathically, if their memory doesn't fail them. The clamor about the deterioration of the language due to SMS lingo, however, seems a little exaggerated. One might be keen on saving characters by omitting the vowels, but doesn't that still mean one has to know where they occur within the spelling of a word? Further, even with the scads of smilies, one might not always be able to convey the desired tone - ironic, jocular, matter-of-fact. One could learn to exploit the ambiguity, though, or live to fight every day the wandering wisp of misunderstanding - the challenge should bring out the best in people!
To me, the most important feature of the SMS, as with all writing, is that even in the most informal of conversations, when you might feel tempted to think aloud and therefore be only aware of the word that's rolling off your tongue at that very moment, you still have the option of considering the entire sentence and its sense before the other person hears you. A protective provision, indeed, if one has a tendency to be caustic. The SMS trumps the email, though both are instantaneously delivered written communications, in that the former is more accessible, at least right now.
All in all, one can't be blamed for preferring the SMS to the call, can they?
Comments