Typophile - Italic vs. italic - Comments

That’s well put.

eliason — Sat, 3 May 2008 17:30:20 -0700

That’s well put.

Those are good points to be

Eben Sorkin — Sat, 3 May 2008 17:23:11 -0700

Those are good points to be sure. I think it’s also true that part of what creates this longing is the fact that in type ( or even just letter work) so much just depends* that it is very easy to feel lost or at least insecure. That along with the fact that some insights can suddenly make things seem so much clearer - like learning about overshoots for instance - combine to create a hunger for authority and the seeming instant magic “rightness”. But part of what’s great about letter design, and font design as a subset of that; is that not only is it a hard nut to crack properly, but I it can be cracked very very well in more than one way. So this longing is unhealthy. I am not trying to convince you but just writing down what your post made me think of.

* on the purpose, the medium, the culture, the paper, the size, and so on

Please don’t tell that

eliason — Sat, 3 May 2008 16:32:08 -0700

Please don’t tell that sounds good to you. Or, are you making some other point?

Oh no, I’m not pining for a return to that. I just find it interesting. It seems to me that typography is a world in which there is lots of longing on the part of student-types for authorities to deliver the rules of correctness, and a fair amount of longing on the part of mentor-types to deliver some rules with authority. And my picture of the history of typography (undocumented, so I welcome correction) is that for most of that history, those longings were met by the apprenticeship structure unproblematically (at least when locally considered). Now we have a world of competing authorities available to beginners - that’s to the good (when globally considered) as you mention. But I find it interesting that the longing doesn’t go away in these changed circumstances. I think there are structures of authority in the world of typography that it would be interesting to dissect.

Kent, extremely well put!

Eben Sorkin — Sat, 3 May 2008 14:05:34 -0700

Kent, extremely well put!

Does that help?

Yes it does.

Bill that was the sort of post I was hoping to read. It clarified a lot about your position for me. Thanks.

But what I think is missing from the muffin analogy and also from Bill’s more type oriented statements is that while 90% of may have some application to some magazine and other commercial work - the world of commercial work extends vastly beyond the scope of Bringhurst’s book. Which means that even assuming that the idea that 90% of Elements is applicable to commercial work ( which I am not quite ready to concede yet - but I will admit is possible ) that still doesn’t mean that Elements is applicable to even 20% of commercial work. Again I make no special claim either way. I am just pointing out the distinction.

To be able to make the claim in a serious way you would have to break it down to a degree I am unwilling to do.

William, I am in agreement with you about it being a wonderful book not because I am certain I agree with all the ideas in it but because it is a serious attempt to grip a complex subject. I have said this kind of thing before: it’s valuable because it is an example of how to try to get your head around the subject. But that doesn’t Jams’ point about the book having a bit of a dangerous allure isn’t also so.

to read guidelines for varied kinds of publication

Me too by Gum! I have an idea ( hopefully false ) that that world is a bit more cut-throat than books. Not that books is somehow a picnic. So getting folks to give out their tricks and insights might be tough.

I have the sense that, generations ago, one learned the “rules” of typography from one’s mentor, and the question of competing “authorities” on correctness was rare.

A state I resolutely wish to avoid! Please don’t tell that sounds good to you. Or, are you making some other point?

actually bad for

You could say “not applicable” or “different from” too. They carry less baggage.

this whole “appeal to authority” conversation

I will admit that I was too harsh with Bill about that. But that was my tone. Again Sorry. But at the same time I do think that that the form an argument takes is important to note and is in fact utterly fair; and more than that, often necessary.

>Honestly they sound very

William Berkson — Sat, 3 May 2008 11:14:17 -0700

>Honestly they sound very much the same.

Eben, a statement and its converse generally don’t have the same meaning.

“90% of Americans drink Starbucks Coffee” and “Americans drink 90% of Starbucks Coffee” don’t mean the same thing. The first can be true and the second false, if a lot of Starbucks coffee is drunk outside the United states.

Do I need to do a picture for you with a map and little people and cups of coffee, or do you get it now?

What I was saying before I was so misunderstood is that 90% of Bringhurst’s rules apply to all typography. That’s why it’s called “Elements of Typographic Style” and not “The Complete Typographer.”

Let’s take a couple of rules: “Read text before designing it” and “Avoid overpunctuating lists.” I may be wrong, but it seems to me like these are also good guidelines for setting text in advertising as well, or for magazine articles. Of course the designer doesn’t have to read all the text, but if he or she doesn’t read enough to get its flavor it seems to me not so good a start for the design. If he or she is designing a template for a periodical, then reading some of the articles will be important to getting the flavor of the publication. So that’s a little different, but the general principle seems to me clear and pretty good.

Now there are a lot of additional considerations for each kind of publication: if you are designing an advertisement, a poster, a magazine, a newspaper, a blog, I think there are a lot of special considerations that apply to these that are different from books. How many additional considerations? I don’t know, but a lot more than 10% additional guidelines. That’s why it’s not true that Bringhurst covers 90% of typography—nor does he claim to.

Kent,

I agree with part of what James M. has been writing, and I don’t understand why he is taking issue when I agree with him. Indeed in this review of Bringhurst that I wrote for Typophile I criticized the book for its narrowly classical taste, and its neglect of the often very different demands of advertising and other kinds of publication outside books. And I wrote this I think three years ago, at a time I hadn’t read anybody else criticizing Bringhurst at all. But I still think it’s a wonderful book in spite of its shortcomings.

The part of what James M has said I indeed have not agreed with. It is, as you say, that Bringhurst’s rules are actually bad for commercial typography. If you remove those that are obviously book specific, such as guidelines for title pages, then I still think that 90% are good for all text. I would also take out the preference for English rules on quotetation marks and dashes. I actually agree with Bringhurst in preferring these, but it is generally not realistic to go against American custom in America.

I confess I haven’t gone through all 129 rules (I just counted them) to see if you’d have to throw out more than 10%, after removing obviously book specific. But my feeling is that 90% would still hold up. Oh, and by the way most of Bringhurst’s advice can be found scattered in other, earlier books as well.

I’m here to learn, so I’d be glad to ready why some of his rules are wrong for magazines or other publications.

I’d been even happier to read guidelines for varied kinds of publication beyond books that are as good and as informative as Bringhurst’s general rules.

Honestly they sound very

eliason — Sat, 3 May 2008 05:51:23 -0700

Honestly they sound very much the same.

Let’s say I have a very detailed and helpful recipe for making blueberry muffins.

If I say “80% of this recipe applies to all muffins,” that’s probably true. No matter what kind of muffins I’m making, I’ll probably want to grease the muffin tins, mix the wet ingredients first, preheat the oven, use flour, eggs, sugar, etc. Obviously the blueberries would be a part of the other 20%, replaced by shredded carrots or bran or orange zest or whatever depending on the muffin desired.

If I say “this recipe applies to 80% of all muffins,” that’s probably false, as blueberry muffins do not make up 4/5 of all muffins.

Does that help?

On this whole “appeal to authority” conversation: is it absurd, or merely apropos, that we’d debate whether Bill’s invocation of Zapf was an appeal to authority, when Zapf’s statement in question (calling something a “bible”) is itself the ultimate appeal to authority?!

I thought the epic rule or law thread was helpful in discerning the different effects of how direction in typography is worded.

I have the sense that, generations ago, one learned the “rules” of typography from one’s mentor, and the question of competing “authorities” on correctness was rare.

Bill — James’s quibble

kentlew — Sat, 3 May 2008 05:02:52 -0700

Bill — James’s quibble with the publishing numbers is a red herring. I believe his main point is that book typography and “commercial” typography are two different things. Financial numbers that you provided to prove that book publishing is as large a commercial endeavor as other forms is not the issue, since “commercial” in this instance is not referring to the financial magnitude or viability of the enterprise.

I believe what James is asserting is that there is a large arena of typography (under his rubric of “commercial”) that operates under different demands (these being generally the commercial aspect) and holds to different standards than that of book composition. Further, he is arguing that many of Bringhurst’s guidelines do not adequately address these sorts of typography and their situations, or they provide unrealistic (and not even necessarily desirable) objectives for this class of typography.

I think I see his point. And I can see how this, exacerbated by an overly reverent attitude towards Bringhurst as a one-size-fits-all “bible” of typography to be turned to for a definitive answer to every typographical conundrum, could be grating. (Not you, personally, Bill; but a general attitude.)

— K.

William what distinctions do

Eben Sorkin — Fri, 2 May 2008 23:10:17 -0700

William what distinctions do you draw between “90% of Bringhurst’s guidelines apply to all typography.”and “Bringhurst covers 90 percent of all typography”. Honestly they sound very much the same. What’s all this imputing? As I said I have no special beef with the “big B” as it were, but I think the idea that his Elements book covers 90% of all typographic tasks is simply mistaken. Total Glyph’s processed is a silly way to prove such an idea. Time spent on tasks is likelier in my view.

>I disagree that Bringhurst

William Berkson — Fri, 2 May 2008 21:35:02 -0700

>I disagree that Bringhurst covers 90 percent of all typography.

I wrote:

“90% of Bringhurst’s guidelines apply to all typography.”

Your paraphrase of what I wrote garbles my meaning. What I wrote I think is true and what you wrongly impute to me is false.

The exact revenue numbers are not important to my argument. My point was that books in the US are a major industry on the order of magnitude of magazine publishing—tens of billions of dollars. If you have other better numbers which would change that picture please let us know.

Book typography is book

terminaldesign — Fri, 2 May 2008 18:33:31 -0700

Book typography is book typography. Traditionally commercial typography is everything else. Magazines, advertising, collateral etc. I disagree that Bringhurst covers 90 percent of all typography. He covers book typography, and has no advice to give on many of the problems faced by typographers working in magazines, advertisements and the like.

William have you ever worked as a commercial typographer? Ever fought with an editor to get them to change a bit of copy to a good rag on a magazine article?

Also the numbers you quote from Publishers Weekly are from the AAP. They under report in some cases and over report in others. Not the best source.

On another note, Publishers Weekly has lost more than a step in the years since my wife was the editor-in-chief. (my personal bias is clearly obvious on this point)

>It doesn’t deal with the

William Berkson — Fri, 2 May 2008 16:28:46 -0700

>It doesn’t deal with the statement ( in this case James’) in a direct or detailed manner. ...if I have missed something please let me know

I also noted in that post that book typography—the focus of Bringhurst’s interest—is also commercial, and gave the numbers. And I argued that 90% of Bringhurst’s guidelines apply to all typography. It seems to me that a good counter argument would address these.

Eben: “So you disagree

James Arboghast — Fri, 2 May 2008 15:19:50 -0700

Eben: “So you disagree that there is a difference between the needs of type maker and somebody making a survey or the topic then?”

No (calmly).

“Just spades & shovels? “A rose by any other name wold smells as sweet” doesn’t quite address the question - I think.”

If you have a spade, and you call it a spade, it’s a spade. If you call the same object a shovel, the object does not change to reflect its new name. When I said “hyperbole” I meant that your description of the images in Nesbitt’s book was hyperbolic in being “a figure of speech consisting in exaggerated statement, used to express strong feeling...” — definition from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I called it hyperbole because at the time of writing it you omitted to explain “To say that it falls far short for a type designer is simply accurate.” as you later did explain.

By “continued debate on ’hyperbole’ seems like topic drift to me” I meant mainly that quibbling about whether your description of “deeply flawed” was hyperbole or not would be of minimal value to the discussion (drift). That’s why I later said, “this is a discussion thread and I am not prepared to sit here bickering” because sidetracks like that one are, in my book of semantics, bickering and not really discussion.

“When I said “if you say so” I was agreeing not to keep digging into what you could possibly mean by spades & spirit. I can still do that. Let it go that is. But I still can’t fathom what you mean. And you have interesting ideas so I would just assume know if it’s okay with you. Or not.”

If you were agreeing not to keep digging into what I could possibly mean by “spades and shovels” then why did you say anything at all? Saying “If you say so” was a confrontational way of stating your neutral position. If you agree not to keep digging into what a person meant by what they said, then don’t say anything about it. Just let it stand and go on with the debate proper.

“In terms of topic drift: If you mean that we are still not talking about the italics then you are 100% correct. I plan to look into it myself so I understand it better and ask Stephen & Yves what they think as well.”

This is good. This whole thread could have been much shorter and easier to decipher had you concentrated on that and not quibbled (bickered) about mere words.

Words are cheap man. Don’t ever let another person’s words get your goat or distract you from the true purpose of the day.

j a m e s

semantic quibbling So you

Eben Sorkin — Fri, 2 May 2008 11:58:38 -0700

semantic quibbling

So you disagree that there is a difference between the needs of type maker and somebody making a survey or the topic then? Just spades & shovels? “A rose by any other name wold smells as sweet” doesn’t quite address the question - I think.

When I said “if you say so” I was agreeing not to keep digging into what you could possibly mean by spades & spirit. I can still do that. Let it go that is. But I still can’t fathom what you mean. And you have interesting ideas so I would just assume know if it’s okay with you. Or not.

In terms of topic drift: If you mean that we are still not talking about the italics then you are 100% correct. I plan to look into it myself so I understand it better and ask Stephen & Yves what they think as well.

which is not fair.

I’m sorry. Maybe that’s right. It would be too easy to think from what I wrote that I was saying you were invoking “( or too often God/gods)” or had done so in the past. Or possibly other things. What I do mean is that the form an argument takes has qualities and characteristics. Your rhetoric called for respect for the received wisdom of Hermann Zapf. Who, in fairness and candor I do respect more & more. And it’s an effective argument as far as it goes. So no harm so far - correct? What I am saying also though is that it is an oblique strategy. It doesn’t deal with the statement ( in this case James’) in a direct or detailed manner. None of this is as far as I can see, personal. It doesn’t deal with what you are or may be but rather with how you have made your case with James. If I have missed something please let me know because i don’t want to put words in your mouth you would prefer not be there or to irritate you etc.

Eben: “seems like topic

James Arboghast — Fri, 2 May 2008 05:57:30 -0700

Eben: “seems like topic drift to me If you say so...”

Also try: semantic quibbling. Call a spade a spade. Even when you call it a shovel, it’s still a spade.

j a m e s

>you invoke the

William Berkson — Fri, 2 May 2008 03:37:16 -0700

>you invoke the unquestionable authority of the 3rd party

Eben, you are imputing to me stuff I never said or meant, which is not fair. The “typographers bible” stuff probably started with Zapf’s ’blurb’ on the cover, and that’s partly why I quoted it. Also to indicate that a very knowledgeable and respected person said it. Experience and esteem don’t make a person right, but they do mean his opinion has some weight, and is worthy of consideration. That’s why authors and publishers seek out the opinion of esteemed people in the field of the book. Their opinion has weight, even though no “unquestionable authority” exists.

Oh, and there was interesting content in Bringhurst’s talk, though I remember thinking it thin—and right now I can’t now remember what it was.

Italic vs. italic

Celeste — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:56:15 -0700

Hi everyone
I’ve read a certain number of times (chez Morison, Bringhurst, etc.) that there were two main styles of Renaissance italics, the Aldine style and the later “fully formed” kind demonstrated by Arrighi, Tagliente and Palatino. Bringhurst in particular complains of the lack of good digital versions of the Aldine model, since many twentieth-century revivals (even those using Alde/Griffo roman models, like Monotype Bembo or Monotype Poliphilus) were released with italic versions based on the later style.
I have two questions here :
1. How does one differentiate the Aldine kind of italic type from the Arrighi et al. style ?
2. Has the situation changed since 1992 (when Bringhurst made the above complaint) and are there now good digital versions of the Aldine italic out there ?
Thank you very much.