Closing double quote in bf or rom?

Bruce's picture

All,

Just wondering how some of you would handle this. Yesterday I was putting together an ad that included a three-sentence extract from a review. Only the final sentence needed to be in boldface. I made the decision to keep the close quote in bold, even though I had started the little paragraph with a normal-weight open quote.

As I assessed the appearance of the 'graph, it seemed less distracting to keep the open quote the same color as the top two lines (rom) and to make the close quote the same color as the last line (bf), even if it made the pair of quotes asymmetrical. Does this seem logical to you? (Quotes were same size as text.)

pattyfab's picture

In 20 years of editorial design I've never known the "rule" about this - it would also seemingly apply to a close quote (or any punctuation) following italics. I generally keep the close quote, or paren, or whatever, in the same style as the text just before it. But I bet Chicago would clarify this. I'll also query an editor I know.

pattyfab's picture

According to my best editorial contact, it varies from house to house (at least within publishing where they are usually more rule-driven than advertising). She favors, visually, keeping it the same style as the text just preceding it, whether bold, italic, or another font.

So I'd say do what looks best.

Nick Shinn's picture

I concur.
If there's no space between characters, they should be the same style, as if they're one word; that's my logic to explain why it looks better that way.

pattyfab's picture

It also looks awful to run italic text into a roman close paren.

Grot Esqué's picture

I like it this (upright parentheses) way.

Bruce's picture

But I think Patty means this (compositor's hell) for which one would have to add tracking.

This is what I dislike about em dashes set closed up: the very thing that is supposed to connote a pause, ends up super-gluing the two neighboring words to each other instead of separating them. Or perhaps a better description is that the two words appear stabbed onto the ends of a skishkebob skewer. I like the gentler approach of having some space between the dash and what it is separating, and often use an en-dash depending on what type face I'm using. (First learned this from Williamson's Methods of Book Design so I suppose it's more of an English tradition than Amurrican.)

Nick Shinn's picture

I like it this (upright parentheses) way.

(But not as above!)

Even for sans serif?

Bruce's picture

Or this one: (Put the elf back in self)

Grot Esqué's picture

I like the gentler approach of having some space between the dash and what it is separating, and often use an en-dash depending on what type face I’m using. (First learned this from Williamson’s Methods of Book Design so I suppose it’s more of an English tradition than Amurrican.)

Yes, I that’s what we do in Europe, I think. (I just had to have upright parentheses, goodbye, semantics.)

Even for sans serif?

Yes, for default at least. I’ve been thinking whether to include slanted parentheses in my fonts or not. I guess I should.

Parentheses are kind of neutral glyphs. They’re not letters, at least. Oblique ones look like crap to me.

I think there was a thread about slanting plus sign and other special characters. Were parentheses there, too?

pattyfab's picture

Well Bruce, as is common here, the consensus is that there is no consensus and therefore unless the client objects you should do what looks best to your eye.

Grot Esqué's picture

Actually, now that I think of it, if the grotesque has an oblique, I might use slanted parentheses. Perhaps. :^)

Linda Cunningham's picture

(hand waving) I'm with Patty -- you match the following punctuation to how you set the preceding text, particularly the italic.

Grot Esqué's picture

Oh, you (mean like this)? (The smiling evil smart ass emoticon)

Edit: I can’t say ass? **** that! :^o

Jackie Frant's picture

Ah - I'm an old typesetter - and I love putting in my 2 cents when it comes to true typesetting questions.

As a person who did advertising typography—I'm with you guys…
The punctuation always looked best in the typeface that was set for that line…

However, Chicago Manual of Style and every editor I ever knew in New York will let you know for book interiors—ah, not so. When you have a paragraph that is set in roman, but has a list in italics - the comma that separates each item in the list is to be roman. If you have a sentence that starts our in regular weight, and ends in a bold weight, the punction—be it a period, exclamation mark (ah, with a bang) and say, quote marks are all to be in the regular weight.

I hope this clears things up just a little…

And they say you guys didn't need professionals anymore…

P.S. You mean like this?
But be prepared to add LS (letterspace)

"But all bold is fine!"
"But regular to bold is not fine!"

Miss Tiffany's picture

Interesting thread, I like hearing more about this sort of work.

I agree. I think the color of a book page is better maintained by not bolding the punctuation. Perhaps that is why the rule has been not bold them.

Grot Esqué's picture

Regular to bold is not fine, indeed. In my example the first parethesis is upright, the second italic. Not fine either.

Syndicate content Syndicate content