Typewriters

Editor of the community newspaper Seven News writing an article to appear in the next issue.

Until the final decades of the 19th century, written materials, including documents that were intended to eventually be printed, were hand-written. Printers setting type worked from these handwritten manuscripts, which might be legible, but which frequently could be difficult to read, and be the source of errors.

When typewriters appeared on the scene, they quickly revolutionized office work as well as the preparation of text that was to be printed. Typewriters made it possible to produce documents (originals or copies) which were more legible than handwritten originals, and – an added bonus – typewriting was quicker than writing by hand. Thanks to the use of carbon paper (thin sheets with dry ink on one side), it was possible to make more than one copy of a typed document, though each copy was somewhat less legible than the one above it. In small left groups, it was common for documents for internal discussion to be typed with one original and four or five copies.

Originally the word typewriter referred to the person using the machine, as well as to the machine itself. Typewriting became identified as women’s work (unlike typesetting in print shops). It was considered to be a ‘respectable’ occupation for an unmarried woman, and of higher status than factory work. The idea that typing was women’s work became so strongly engrained that even in the left movements of the 1960s, women were still routinely expected to do the typing: one of the examples of sexism that women struggled against.

Typewriters were an essential part of the process by which stencils were produced for the low-cost duplicating machines which were a mainstay of grassroots activist groups. Instead of a regular piece of paper, a stencil was fed into the typewriter. As each letter was typed, the typewriter’s keys cut into the stencil, creating a gap which ink or mimeograph fluid could pass through once the stencil was placed on the duplicating machine.

Typewriters required accuracy, because there was no easy way to correct mistakes. There was no Delete key, no Insert key, no way to cut-and-paste. Correcting minor errors, such as a mistyped letter, was possible but cumbersome. When typing on paper, a special eraser could be used to painstakingly erase a mistyped letter. If a stencil was being prepared, correcting fluid in a small jar could be spread over the incorrect letter, then, after it had time to dry, the correct letter could be typed over top. Major errors could not be corrected: re-typing was the only option.

A Royal Commander typewriter in its portable case.

The actual process of writing was also different with a typewriter, compared to the computer keyboards which came into use later. Because correcting even minor errors was difficult, and major revisions required retyping the manuscript, there was a strong incentive to get it right the first time, that is, to think through what you wanted to say, and get it down on paper the way you wanted to say it. In the niche community of people who continue to use typewriters, one hears the claim that when you write with a typewriter, you think more clearly than with a computer.

Typewriters remain in common use in parts of the world, e.g. rural areas of Africa and Latin America, where electricity is not available. They are still manufactured in Brazil.

At that time, before there was easy duplicating we didn’t have cassette recording and we didn’t have xeroxes. What would happen was, it could drive you nuts, someone would type the thing out. We’d get the thinnest onion skin you could find and make copies. If you were unlucky enough to get the 7th or 8th copy, you would have a hell of a time reading the goddamn thing! The copies would come and we’d sit up, late at night, reading it. It was fantastic.

– Martin Glaberman

Martin Glaberman (1918-2001) was a radical activist, trade unionist, and historian. This quote comes from a talk he gave for the Marxist Institute of Toronto in September 1974, on Marxian views of the working class.