Listening to the podcast, Behind The Lines, the consolidation of the love letters and the narrators added a touch of authenticity to it. If I had just read the letters on their own in my head, then I would not have inferred the sense of genuineness that the auditory reading provided. This makes me wonder, what was considered “censorable material” within love letters? What was the government’s reasoning for the various ideas or themes that needed to be censored in love letters?
I found “Dear John Letters” surprising because I never knew there was an “official name” for breakup letters to the men serving in the war. I always hear about the positive and romantic nature of letters between corresponding lovers, but never the opposite. I’m not sure specifically which love letter made me recognize this, but I noted a common, recurring response to receiving “Dear John” letters. Along with other army members’, the “Dear John” letters were collected and then set ablaze. But why are they called “Dear John” letters to begin with? Was John just that popular of a name during that time?
The couple of Sid Diamond and Estelle Spero stood out to me, as they were so charming. The letter addressed to Estelle opens up with Sid writing in a grammatically incorrect way. The voice actor interprets it and sees it as if he is speaking with a heavy New Jersey accent. Had it not been for the reading, I would not have interpreted his erroneous writing that way; ultimately losing the entire humor of the letters intro. In its own, but very different way, this act of reading in between the lines is similar to the sending and receiving texts emails. You, the reader, need to postulate the meaning of the communication as a whole based on the context you are provided with.
