Going analog isn’t just about slowing down

My case for championing typewriters has nothing to do with niche aesthetics.

By JULIA HO
(Catherine Flores / Daily Trojan)

The mistake is always four lines back. By the time I notice it, I have typed past it twice, and fixing it means rolling the platen back, squaring the correction tape against the page, striking the wrong letter a second time to lift it off and hoping the line still sits where it belongs when I’m done. On a laptop, this takes half a second and no thought at all. On my typewriter, it takes at least a minute and my full attention, and I resent it every single time.

I keep three journals now. Two are Leuchtturm1917s that are filled with a Muji 0.38-mm blue-black pen, and my hand moves roughly at the speed of my thoughts, which means those notebooks are a faithful transcript of a mind going in circles.

My third journal is the typewriter, and it cannot keep up with me. It also charges me for every misstep. So before I commit to a sentence, I decide whether it is worth the correction tape. Most of the time, it isn’t. 


Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

What comes out is shorter, slower and stranger. The entries I have typed and stored in my three-inch-thick binder atop my bedside table feel less like venting and more like something I actually meant. I handle the machine with care, and I started handling the content with care, too.

Research suggests this isn’t just a feeling. James Pennebaker, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, built much of the modern case for therapeutic journaling: In his foundational studies, participants who wrote for 15 minutes a day about difficult experiences showed measurable health effects months later. The mechanism researchers tend to credit is not pure emotional release; it is the cognitive work of turning a mess into a tangible narrative.

The distinction that convinced me comes from a 2003 factor analysis by Wendy Treynor, Richard Gonzalez and Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, which split rumination into two components that are still scored separately: brooding, the passive loop of dwelling on why you feel bad, and reflection, the analytical kind that actually turns the thing over. 

Brooding is the one that foreshadows depression a year out; reflection doesn’t. Two landmark studies of expressive writing, in 2006 and 2008, found that brooding seemed to help by quieting the loop rather than by producing insight. One is a mind stuck; the other is a mind working.

This research isn’t exactly about journaling. Expressive writing means a protocol: 15 or 20 minutes a day, three or four days running, about a single difficult experience, usually under lab conditions. A notebook you keep for years is a different animal, and the evidence for the protocol is more modest than the way journaling usually gets sold to us.

A 2023 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology pooled 31 randomized trials and about 4,000 participants and found an effect on depression, anxiety and stress that was real but small, and showed up at follow-up rather than right away. Writing is not a treatment plan, and neither is a piece of office equipment from the 1960s; journaling is not a substitute for actually talking to someone. 

But brooding requires a medium fast enough to keep up with the loop. My pen is. My typewriter isn’t. 

We talk about digital life as though the problem were speed, but my pen is faster than typing into my Notes app. What my phone offers isn’t velocity, but weightlessness: Everything I write on it can be revised, unsent, archived, deleted or left in drafts forever. 

Nothing is final, and that’s the problem. When a sentence costs nothing to produce and nothing to retract, there is no moment at which I have to decide I mean it. 

Yes, “going analog” is having a moment, and it’s being shoved down consumers’ throats. But the argument isn’t that the object is virtuous; it is that a machine which can only do one thing at a time takes a decision out of my hands that I was making a hundred times a day haphazardly. 

I’ve spent three years at USC writing toward whatever comes next: the application, the pitch, the follow-up, the version of myself that gets hired. What I want out of my final year is narrower: I want to say fewer things and mean more of them. 

It’s not like my typewriter stopped my spiraling. It is loud, it is inconvenient and I’ve already run out of correction tape once. What it did was introduce a cost, and it turns out I needed one. 

You don’t need my machine, and you shouldn’t buy one on my account. Find one place where your words can’t be revised after the fact. Then notice how much less you are willing to say once you can’t take it back, and how much more you mean what’s left. Some thoughts should be expensive. Most of mine were free. 

© University of Southern California/Daily Trojan. All rights reserved.