Well, first of all, thank you for reaching out to me. I’m happy to discuss this with you. I would have preferred to meet with you in a less alarming, drastic sort of way, but you aren’t wrong to want to be discreet about this. This is a very, very serious problem.

Now, I don’t think that you’ve discovered the traces of people who have fallen out of reality or any sort of warning from beyond. They have the appearance of cries for help or of attempts to warn us of something, reaching, so to speak, through the static curtain of everyday writing, but we know that appearances may be deceiving. Naturally, being human, it is our impulse to give help when help is asked for, and there is a special horror surrounding the image of someone perishing, calling to someone who can’t, or won’t, respond, or perhaps doesn’t hear. And, of course, sometimes people choose not to help. Selfishness, perhaps, might be the motive, but then sometimes people are too intimidated to help, or cannot help without exposing themselves to punishment – to the same fate, likely enough, as the person who is calling to them.

I also have to assure you that it is quite impossible for writing to somehow come to life, no matter how closely linked thinking and language may be, no matter how closely writing and memory are linked together, no matter how autonomously language may behave independently of personal human will. A person is, granted, a kind of linguistic elemental, a sort of machine made of several different kinds of processes which will all involve language that is fixed in ways that resemble writing, but there is no ground whatever for thinking that language might also spontaneously form persons, or, for that matter, edit, or even delete persons, leaving behind, in some cases, some fragments of language. You see how your theory blurs the lines dividing the human person from the operations of human language? If we were to take this theory to its logical conclusion, then that could mean that the language we’re using right now, this moment, is not even a human language at all—that the idea of a “human language” is a kind of solecism. And, if it isn’t human, that is, not a human creation, but on the contrary, the thing that creates human beings, at least as persons... well, where would that idea lead us?