(of ink or a pen) making marks that cannot be removed.
There is something about a book - particularly one produced on a typewriter when looking at it from the author's perspective... something about the simultaneous transfer of thought to paper as a purposeful and physical engagement... thought to action, pressing the keys. to reaction, the slug impacting the ribbon and the ribbon impacting the paper, pressing it against the platen and creating a mark... an indelible mark.
The application of ink to paper that commits one's thoughts/ideas to the pages provides instant, permanent physical existence to those ideas... no review, edit, post... just hit key and done.
Typing on a typewriter literally gives instant physical existence to one's thoughts. The 'weight' of one's words is felt, literally, by the person typing as well as by the future reader as they hold the physical book. That physical book is then available to the reader who can then read, digest, and revisit it to discern and interpret the thoughts and ideas conveyed within. As an extension of that, if the author wished to update information and/or even change position, a new 'edition' would need to be produced and issued... but it would not 'replace' the 1st Edition. The X edition could be compared and contrasted with the 1st Edition providing the reader with context for any edits. The idea that a 1st Edition of any book, prepared speech, or other written document was to be seen as the author's unfiltered thoughts and intentions has been, to a great extent, lost. An author could edit and update a text, but this was a process that then demanded explanation: typo, clarification, change in position. That concept of a 1st Edition being the original or raw product has, to a great extent, been lost.
In contrast, so many things today are typed or dictated into a computer and then only displayed on screens. There is no true physicality to them. This has also muddled the concept of original intent as writers can continually edit and instantaneously update, often without any obvious indication to the reader. Internet articles and blogs can appear, get revised without any indication, or even completely disappear. There is often no physical printed edition to go back to for reference.
Even more frequently, Facebook and Twitter posts mysteriously cease to exist when they become inconvenient. Even video clips, being just clips due heavily to the growing phenomenon of short attention span syndrome, are just that... clips. So the subject, or observer, can frequently claim 'lack of context' allowing the subject, or observer, to merrily backpedal or even completely reinvent their intent if, for instance, political winds change. As stated, it is important to recognize that this applies to both 'subject' and 'observer' - and can be leveraged and manipulated for the benefit of either party.
I could be wrong... I could just be rambling on because I felt like taking a photo of a typewriter and a book... or maybe I'm not... or maybe I never even pondered this question... maybe "tomorrow" you'll wake up to discover that this blog apparently said something completely different "yesterday" than you seem to recall it said "today".