About Handwriting...

[Ally1205]

Hello all,

My interest in fountain pens arose recently from a decision to try and train myself once again to write elegantly by hand. It’s something I have never managed to achieve before. In my favour, I have a fairly well developed ability do recognise beauty and skill in the graphic arts. However, my handicap is that I just don't seem to have a natural talent for writing neatly and beautifully, like some people do. And some people surely do; I have seen examples of handwriting, even by teenagers, that I have envied. And I doubt that they went to any great lengths to achieve such style and neatness.

 

After embarking on this quest, a few interesting things, and also a few dilemmas have come to light. While I'm not convinced that graphology can do all that some suggest, I do believe that one’s handwriting style does reflect one's personality, character, and neurological and emotional state in some way. It has occurred to me that perhaps one actually needs to change one's 'state' or even one’s character in order to effectively and permanently change one's handwriting. The implications of this seem profound. It would make the pursuit of elegant handwriting a valid route to self-improvement and an effective form of psychotherapy for some. For a start, it seems evident that in order to learn (or re-learn) to write neatly and elegantly, one needs to achieve a state of calm, focused attention. Only be becoming calm can one achieve the smooth bodily coordination that is necessary. A calm, focused state is invariably a comfortable and satisfying state, where one has a generally higher level of mental and physical aptitude. In order to make handwriting improvements stick, one needs to make those adjustments in ones state of mind habitual.

 

I would like to ask those people who are not happy with their own handwriting: is it possible that you are also not wholly satisfied with your general neuropsychological or emotional state, or even your personality and/or charcter? If the answer is 'yes', then working to change one's handwriting could be one very effective form of self-help and an effective path to personal change. It will require self-discipline and it can soon become a satisfying pursuit. It does not have to be difficult; one can apply oneself for a few minutes every day, or longer, according to one’s wishes. New habits need to be established, and that does require some ongoing self-discipline.

 

Another aspect of handwriting improvement that interests me is the question of how people come to write in the styles they have adopted. How did your handwriting develop? Did you more-or-les stick with the style you were trained in at school, or did you, at some point make a radical change, and why? Perhaps you, like me, have pondered, in depth, at least once or twice in your life, about what kind of writing style you would really like to adopt. If you did arrive at this question, did you arrive at an answer that inspired you to make the necessary changes? Did you find the changes easy to make habitual?

 

I my own case, I was trained in a cursive style that was really the round-hand copperplate style, albeit with simple capitals. We were even trained to used dip pens, which would have actually facilitated the achievement of true perfection in the copperplate style. As a pupil, however, we regarded the dip pens as an archaic folly and an unnecessary discipline. After all, biros and fountain pens were now freely available!

When I reached the age of 13 or so, I came to the conclusion that striving to write in that style was pointless because I had no desire to end up writing that way by habit, and it felt demeaning to follow the herd. So I made the decision to adopt a style that expressed my individuality and my artistic inclinations. I shunned the loop and adopted the trailing down-stroke, which I must have subconsciously noticed on documents of the 17th century. I also abandoned the 'slant' because I felt it was awkward, unnecessary and pretentious. I never did perfect my own attempts at a more indivualistic style, and my handwriting gradually deteriorated, over the years, especially after I adopted the keyboard as my primary writing tool.

 

In my current efforts to to improve, I started by copying a style that I find attractive, namely a round-hand style found in the penmanship books by George Bickham of the 1730s. Unlike the round-hand we were taught at junior school, this style uses few loops, and seems like a style that could be written with some speed, once mastered. However, replicating the style faithfully requires considerable diligence, concentration and care at first, so that speed can be eventually be increased without sacrificing accuracy. On realising this, I had to consider whether I was prepared to pay the price of the time it requires. I feel that attempting to write in that style without having properly mastered it can look awful, reminiscent of my efforts when I was originally trying to practice round-hand as a pre-teen. Therefore, I have come to a definite "Y" in the road ahead, and I have not yet decided which fork to take. Should I carry on practicing Bickham's round-hand until it looks as perfect as I think should, or should I relax my intention to learn this style faithfully? I have come to this same fork in the road before. It’s a dilemma! Someone once advised (perhaps it was a Zen master): "If you come to a fork in the road, take it!" The trouble is, I never understood the logic in that advice, or whether it is reflects true wisdom or not!

 

Even if one does decide on the "learn the round-hand to perfection" route, one is then faced with at least one subsequent additional fork in the road. For example, deciding which form of capitals to adopt and what degree of flamboyancy and flourish to add without seeming too inappropriate or eccentric. Ultimately, I want to achive a style that is a good balance between efficiency and elegance. Didn't some philosopher once propose that beauty and efficiency goes hand in hand, in other words suggesting that whatever is most efficient is usually also the most beautiful? I am not sure if that conclusion is reliable. It doesn't seem to be whan I consider some of the flamboyant capitals widely employed during what I consider to be the golden age of handwriting: the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

Am I alone in finding that changing one’s handwriting (permanently) to ones maximum satisfaction is rather more complicated than one might at first realise?

 

What a shame I couldn't have written the above by hand. That would have been good practice! Your thoughts on any of the above would be of great interest.

 

Regards,

Al

 

The image below is from a 1733 book on penmanship by George Bickham:

Edited June 24, 2013 by Ally1205

[wolffullmoon]

I, too, embarked on a similar quest a few years ago. I learned the modified Palmer method in grade school (1950's) but little emphasis was given to follow-through past third grade. My writing got worse and worse. I began to use a combination of printing and cursive which suited me at the time. During my senior year in high school the college-bound students took Notehand. This was a combination of typing (the singluar most valuable skill I took from HS) and modified Gregg shorthand. This was to facilitate taking notes in class in college. When taking the class we were required to use fountain pens. This was some sort of Sheaffer "school" type pen with cartridges and was a pain the the butt. Every time one touched the page one left a mark. No mercy. I didn't know at the time this was the whole idea but as a senior I thought i knew it all anyway.

About seven years ago I thought of improving my writing and bought a fountain pen. A real fountain pen. A Pelikan 1000. I really liked the responsive nib and the line variation--after I had it modified. My wife and I attended a local art/bookmaking workshop and there I met a man who used Roundhand regularly in all his correspondence. Very beautiful. I had seen the Spencerian hand and thought it was very interesting. This man said Roundhand was pretty simple but Spencerian was just too difficult. Bull. I decided I would learn Spencerian. I found a wonderful teacher who provided 12 one on one lessons at her home and worked with her. This was eye-opening. I have stuck with it but use a more modified Palmer method writing while still keeping up some Spencerian practice. The biggest lesson was learning the whole arm method of writing. I have since had some rheumatoid arthritis in my right hand and the whole arm method enables me to write without any problems. I have only to grip the pen. My arm does the rest. The single biggest suggestion I have (works for me) is: take one's time. there is no need to hurry. Since in my business I write hard copy orders and faxes, I really write them.

Frame of mind is important but practice and repitition seem to me to be the key. My writing is getting better because I write. I don't just trot it out for special occasions. All my business correspondence on paper is written in longhand. I find this gives special significance to the recipient. It gets read! I doesn't guarantee sales but getting through the clutter of the competition puts one a step ahead.

I did notice that my writing gets more fluid and freer if I have a couple of belts but I try not to write anything critical at those times. I did ntoice at a trade show at the bar my singature was a little more flourished at the end of the evening than the beginning.

Relaxation does help but practice is , in my opinion, the real secret.

Just thought I would share.

[Ally1205]

Hello Wolfullmoon,

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject. You mentioned some things of particular interest to me, one of which is the subject of writing with the whole arm. This is a discipline I must try to adopt. I have seen it advocated in various penmanship instruction texts of yesteryear. It is reassuring to hear of someone in today's world endorsing it. I will definitely have to give it a go. On the subject of Spencerian script, I too was surprised to read your recount of a penman who held that Spencerian was too difficult, compared to round-hand.

 

Spencerian is the other style I was considering adopting as my target style for disciplined practice. I've been looking at a good quantity of documents written in the 19th Century (mostly American). Various types of Spencerian and round-hand script catch my eye and inspire me. When deciding between one basic style or the other, I found myself leaning towards the styles that employ widened down-strokes in the lower case lettering.

 

I think the Spencerian probably permits greater speed and efficiency, due to its greater angularity (with lines tending to make their way from point A to point B by a shorter route than in round-hand). The uniform line thickness used in lower case letters must also give it an edge over traditional round-hand when it comes to speed and efficiency. I love some of the flamboyant capitals found in some Spencerian writing. I guess the speed they lose on those capitals, they make up for on the lower case wording!

 

I definitely agree that frequent practice is a key component of imroving as quickly as possible. I also agree that handwriting has a useful place in business. I do a lot of mail order selling and I almost always write a 'thank you' note on the packing slips. Using a fountain pen for this gives a good impression, I think. Of course, what one says is probably more important, but the way it is physically written says a great deal. Just as a picture paints a thousand words, I think writing style and method also says a lot. I think you are lucky to have a good way of practice your handwriting skills frequently. For me, just starting out, I am still searching for opportunities to practice my handwriting more often.

 

Thanks again for your input...

 

Regards,

Al

Edited June 24, 2013 by Ally1205

[wolffullmoon]

One thing I did learn is that no fountain pen is a substitute for a good dip pen and iron gall ink. The contrast between the hairlines and the bold ones is almost impossible with a fountain pen, even a good vintage one. The old steel nibs write some really fine hairlines and then will expand to at least 2mm. The ink is another factor as is the paper. Spencerian was conceived (as I read it) as another handwriting system prior to Palmer. It allowed one to write quickly with little pen lifting and I think was intended for business correspondence. The roundhand does have more thinks on the downstroke and is more rythmic--pressure, no pressure, pressure, etc. Spencerian seems to allow one to write the miniscules with no pressure (except for r, t and d) while allowing one to really jazz up the capital letters.

 

I'll tell you letters addressed in this style (hardly ever as some can't even read cursive) get a lot of attention. One may not get an answer but follow-up calls get me through to the customer.

 

Palmer seems just fine for normal correspondence. Spencerian is something I use with folks I know. Some may think Spencerian is just over the top in business.

 

Keep going for the whole arm method. Some of the old handwriting manuals have great ideas on how to acheive this.

 

Best of luck,

 

Jim

[GabrielleDuVent]

I originally learned my cursive in the US, and it was mandatory to turn in all work written in blue or black cursive. Over the years, my writing hasn't changed much, except perhaps getting neater. I had a period of taking notes in print, but I just looked through my notes over the years and it turns out I only did this with science/maths.

 

Perhaps it is not a change of character that requires a change in penmanship, but a different frame of mind. I often find that when I am emotionally unstable (that sounds I'm a hysteric, but that's not what I mean), my handwriting is definitely worse; disarray, an errant flip here and there, the g disintegrating into a very sloppy 8...

 

On the other hand, my mate had a rather drastic change a few years ago; or perhaps he was originally in the state he is now, and his degeneracy had rendered him into a different person, and he bounced back. Either way, his handwriting changed and I could observe this as he wrote to me frequently, although the steadiness varied. The flourishes diminished a little, and his letters became more even and structured, as if he was conscious of his act of taking a pen and penning a letter that would be read by someone. It was gradual, but it was evident that his mental state that had been chaotic was slowly being restructured and re-organised (the contents of the letter changed as well, so that might have been a sign too).

 

His letters are carefully formed now, legible, simple, but well-formed; not much flourish, but perhaps he is conscious that later generations may read the words we have exchanged. He had not practised penmanship, but he later said that it was perhaps because he was feeling decadently corrupt and hedonistic that he wrote in such a manner.

[Runnin_Ute]

In the six months or so I have been active on these forums, I have noticed a drastic improvement in my handwriting. I have also noticed that the all/most cap printing I did/do is not near as prevalent as it once was.I was a bit of a hybrid between printing and cursive script. It is more cursive oriented now. I don't do a lot of formal exercise that way, but I did make a conscious effort to make what seemed like minor changes - but have really become much larger over time.

[Ally1205]

One thing I did learn is that no fountain pen is a substitute for a good dip pen and iron gall ink. The contrast between the hairlines and the bold ones is almost impossible with a fountain pen, even a good vintage one. The old steel nibs write some really fine hairlines and then will expand to at least 2mm. The ink is another factor as is the paper. Spencerian was conceived (as I read it) as another handwriting system prior to Palmer. It allowed one to write quickly with little pen lifting and I think was intended for business correspondence. The roundhand does have more thinks on the downstroke and is more rythmic--pressure, no pressure, pressure, etc. Spencerian seems to allow one to write the miniscules with no pressure (except for r, t and d) while allowing one to really jazz up the capital letters.

 

I'll tell you letters addressed in this style (hardly ever as some can't even read cursive) get a lot of attention. One may not get an answer but follow-up calls get me through to the customer.

 

Palmer seems just fine for normal correspondence. Spencerian is something I use with folks I know. Some may think Spencerian is just over the top in business.

 

Keep going for the whole arm method. Some of the old handwriting manuals have great ideas on how to acheive this.

 

Best of luck,

 

Jim

Hey Jim,

Yes, I had a try at the whole arm method, and I could see the potential; certain aspects of my writing improved immediately. I don't think I could write with totally petrified fingers though. I think some degree of finger flexing must still be in order. What do you think? I can see how it would particularly suit the Spencerian and other angular styles of writing. Not so sure about round-hand, because of the need to draw smooth, perfect ovals so frequently... I also note that it works well for writing greater thana certain size. It seems impractical for writing below a certain size. Would you agree?

 

I hear what you're saying about dip pens vs. fountain pens. I use dip pens at home, for the reasons you gave. I'm still hoping to find a fountain pen that will be a halfway resonable compromise, for the obvious mobility advantages. I bought a Serwex flex nib FP, but it just cannot release enough ink to cope with the amount of nib-flexing I want to do. At first, I thought the pen was at fault, but I'm told that modern flex-bib FP's just don't provide enough flow to cope with constant flexing. This surprises me a bit. If they could make dip pens that coped, hundreds of years ago, I would have thought someone could design a FP that had adequate flow, using today's technology.

 

Al

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ally1205

[Ally1205]

Perhaps it is not a change of character that requires a change in penmanship, but a different frame of mind. I often find that when I am emotionally unstable (that sounds I'm a hysteric, but that's not what I mean), my handwriting is definitely worse; disarray, an errant flip here and there, the g disintegrating into a very sloppy 8...

I have to admit that when I get a tad neurotic, under pressure, it shows in my handwriting! My handwriting provides useful biofeedback signals, telling me when I need to back off and relax! Then, once my handwriting is back on an even keel, I know I'm 'good to go' again!

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ally1205

[Ally1205]

In the six months or so I have been active on these forums, I have noticed a drastic improvement in my handwriting. I have also noticed that the all/most cap printing I did/do is not near as prevalent as it once was.I was a bit of a hybrid between printing and cursive script. It is more cursive oriented now. I don't do a lot of formal exercise that way, but I did make a conscious effort to make what seemed like minor changes - but have really become much larger over time.

 

I've found that just studying a lot of admirable handwriting syles has helped my handwriting, even without any conscious effort. I'm going to start practising new styles. i was working on just one (round-hand or engraver's script) but 've decided there can be no harm in learning more than one new style simultaneously.

 

Al

Edited June 26, 2013 by Ally1205

[Runnin_Ute]

 

I've found that just studying a lot of admirable handwriting syles has helped my handwriting, even without any conscious effort. I'm going to start practising new styles. i was working on just one (round-hand or engraver's script) but 've decided there can be no harm in learning more than one new style simultaneously.

 

Al

I enjoy viewing others work as well. Before moving on to something else, I made a conscious decision to improve my current hand to an acceptable level before I start working on something else. Whether I use a 1.1 mm, a M, or an F (don't yet have a B, EF or others)

[Ally1205]

My favourite book on handwriting improvement, at the moment, is "Improve your Handwriting" by Tom Gourdie. (© 1975)

 

ISBN-10: 0273012487

ISBN-13: 978-0273012481

http://tinyurl.com/ku8c3n8

Tom Gourdie MBE, (1913 - 2005), a Scotsman, was, as far as I'm aware, the greatest contributor to the field of handwriting-improvement in the 20th Century. He pioneered his "simple modern hand" which was taught in schools throughout the Western World from the early 1960s. That style borrows from the simple italic hand of yore. In the same book, he teaches formal italic, and touches on a number of other styles including Palmer, simple looped cursive, copperplate and Marion Richardson. The whole book is reproduced from his own handwriting!

 

I noticed that since learning the simple italic-hand, as taught by him, my handwriting has improved 100% in neatness and legibility. The book stresses the importance of hand-movement caused by flexing of the wrist rather than flexing of the fingers. This made a world of difference for me.

 

The book includes an impressive selection of "before and after" examples of handwriting-improvers who adopted his approach. The book also touches on a number of other well-known handwriting styles.

 

A

Edited August 6, 2013 by Ally1205