Maybe Cursive just give up and die already?

[KateGladstone]

  Ondina said:

Me, and most people I know who cares about the education of their children will directly take their kids out of a school who, not only teaches cursive, but that emphasizes it.

 

So pelegrim, I'm very pro-cursive, pro reading, comprehension and mostly pro a good sound education.

 

As you see it, Ondina, does favoring "a good sound education" include favoring standard English grammar?

 

[Judybug]

  effrafax said:

Couple of things.

 

Firstly, how come kids are so much more busy at school these days than when I was at school? They sure as hell don't seem to be learning any more, mostly they seem to know much less. [i went to school in the UK, from '61 to '74 - age 5 to 18.] . . .

 

Excellent question! I've been wondering the same thing. It doesn't appear that kids here in the US are learning any more than my generation did in the 50s and 60s. Sometimes I wonder - are we trying to teach so many things that it's impossible to learn anything well?

 

I don't mean to be contentious, but I just cannot grasp what is so difficult about writing - or reading - cursive. I don't think we should abandon teaching it, but - to repeat myself - if someone prefers a legible print or italic hand, it's OK by me. Being able to COMMUNICATE is the goal, isn't it?

 

Judybug

 

[KateGladstone]

  Titivillus said:

Reading a book about handwriting in America and they brought up an interesting point that with the amount of standardization in the modern world that the one real place that a person can show their individuality is by using their own modified version of cursive. And with the standardization that is forced upon all people maybe cursive should stay.

 

So nevermind.

 

 

K

 

Which book? It sounds interesting -- but why (in the author's view) did individualization require, specifically, making individual modifications to *cursive*? Why wouldn't a personally modified version of any other style do the trick?

 

[Anne-Sophie]

  KateGladstone said:

What about the research (cited in Kitty Florey's SCRIPT AND SCRIBBLE and also cited in the "Writing Rebels" page of my web-site) showing that the most rapid legible handwriters avoid "cursive writing"?

The research shows that the fastest legible handwriters join only some letters (they make the very easiest of the joins, and omit the rest) and tend to use print-like letter-shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes "disagree." In other words, writers who stick to all the defining features of "cursive-as-we-know-it" write less rapidly, and apparently no more legibly, than writers who change certain of those defining features.

 

To use your "typewriting" analogy ... suppose it turned out that the most legible and accurate typing came from typists who combined certain aspects of touch-typing with certain aspects of hunt-and-peck. What (if anything) would make it particularly sensible for typing teachers to ignore that information?

 

I ended up mixing print and cursive after I an attempt to "retrain" my handwriting as a teen.

I hated print with a passion and I am desperately trying to re-learn how to write all cursive, all the time because I love cursive.

 

My husband bough me Mavis Beacon teaches typing, when he found out I was a hunt and peck typist.

The training was so much fun that I am a mostly fluent touch typist.

Hunt and peck is counterproductive as one has to hunt for a letter while trying to think of what to type.

 

 

And by the way, denying evolution isn't about spirituality but an attempt by some organized religions to deny science so they can go on abusing beings.

One needs to remember that Galileo got in enormous trouble for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe when he discovered the heliocentrism of our system.

 

I think cursive could be taught either at school or at home but then I don't have children so what ever the parents of school age children decide will be their lot.

[Anne-Sophie]

  Titivillus said:

Reading a book about handwriting in America and they brought up an interesting point that with the amount of standardization in the modern world that the one real place that a person can show their individuality is by using their own modified version of cursive. And with the standardization that is forced upon all people maybe cursive should stay.

 

So nevermind.

 

 

K

 

Could that be the book?

 

Handwriting in America: A Cultural History, by Tamara Plakins Thornton. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996. Pp. xiv, 248.

[Judybug]

  Anne-Sophie said:

. . .

And by the way, denying evolution isn't about spirituality but an attempt by some organized religions to deny science so they can go on abusing beings.

. . .

 

Micro-evolution is indeed science and is hardly controversial. Macro-evolution is a scientific theory and is rejected by many scientists as well as people of faith. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm not sure how a discussion of evolution crept into a discussion of the pros and cons of cursive writing. Perhaps we should dispense with controversial comments that may give offense lest the admins close this very interesting thread about penmanship.

 

Judybug

[Titivillus]

  Anne-Sophie said:

  Titivillus said:

Reading a book about handwriting in America and they brought up an interesting point that with the amount of standardization in the modern world that the one real place that a person can show their individuality is by using their own modified version of cursive. And with the standardization that is forced upon all people maybe cursive should stay.

 

So nevermind.

 

 

K

 

Could that be the book?

 

Handwriting in America: A Cultural History, by Tamara Plakins Thornton. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996. Pp. xiv, 248.

 

That seems like it. Good book

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

  Ondina said:

I do consider my own hand to be cursive, and although the formal definition of it is "having the successive letters joint together" most of us don't, or at least not all of them. And still think is cursive. And by the way, the same Farlex online dictionary offers a very explicit thesaurus section where italic, copperplate and minuscules are considered synonyms. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cursive

 

I think this is a point of misunderstanding in this discussion. When we talk about teaching cursive in the US, and when articles decry the "downfall of cursive," they are talking about 100% joined writing, based on one of the variations of Spencarian, Palmer or Zanarian scripts from the late 19th and early 20th century (or the modern Zaner-Bloser, DeNelian, etc.). Cursive in this context is a form of looped writing, where letters are 100% joined within the word and use many letterforms distinctly different from the printed versions. Italic forms, or semi-joined forms are not considered correct in this definition of cursive and where cursive is strictly tought, failing to fully join letters is considered incorrect and grounds for marks against.

 

The letter from Finland listed shown above would not be considered cursive (I don't know whether you were using that as an example of cursive or not) but represents a delightfully legible italic-based form that is a pleasure to read. It is not considered cursive in the US, and would get marks against it if submitted in a class where cursive was required.

 

 

 

I would like to suggest we drop the term "cursive" from discussions of handwriting, because it's meaning has become so unclear and there is such misunderstanding of what it means. Does any form of joined or partly joined writing qualify as cursive, or only fully-joined neo-Palmarian styles?

 

For those who would defend American "cursive", I ask - why is a neo-Palmarian style superior to many of the other hands available, and why is it so important that we adhere to this style? Or is it just important that we teach and emphasize handwriting as a form of artful communication? Why is neo-Palmarian superior to Italic, or to the British scribes hand, or a dozen other historical handwriting styles with various degrees of connected or unconnected writing?

 

 

Kate, incidently (for those unfamiliar) is a handwriting teacher and consultant, who is quite adamant about the value of handwriting and teaching clear, legible handwriting (much of her work involves teaching doctor's how to write legible chart-notes). She is somewhat fanatical about using an italic-based writing style in which letters all have the same basic form, with joins added if desired. This eliminates the need to teach kids two very different writing styles, and seem to fit with some recent research in overall writing speed and legibility (which indicates most legible and fastest writers use a semi-joined style, rather than a completely unjoined "print" or a fully-joined "cursive"). She can be a bit fanatical on the subject, and I am not completely sold on it, but I think there is a strong case to be made for the style. It is legible, fairly easy to teach, and with care can be quite beautiful, with joins or not - and I can't think of anything more you can ask for in a writing hand.

 

 

Personally, I would be happy to dump the overly-rational, upright stick-and-ball letterforms that we tend to call "print" (at least in this country).

 

John

[Johnny Appleseed]

  Titivillus said:

When was the last time you used calculus or talked about cell division. :roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho:

 

Just last week, but my coworkers all claimed I was giving them a headache and sent me back to my cube. . .

 

John

[James Pickering]

  Johnny Appleseed said:

.......... I think this is a point of misunderstanding in this discussion. When we talk about teaching cursive in the US, and when articles decry the "downfall of cursive," they are talking about 100% joined writing, based on one of the variations of Spencarian, Palmer or Zanarian scripts from the late 19th and early 20th century (or the modern Zaner-Bloser, DeNelian, etc.). Cursive in this context is a form of looped writing, where letters are 100% joined within the word and use many letterforms distinctly different from the printed versions. Italic forms, or semi-joined forms are not considered correct in this definition of cursive and where cursive is strictly tought, failing to fully join letters is considered incorrect and grounds for marks against .......... I would like to suggest we drop the term "cursive" from discussions of handwriting, because it's meaning has become so unclear and there is such misunderstanding of what it means. Does any form of joined or partly joined writing qualify as cursive, or only fully-joined neo-Palmarian styles? ..........

 

Following is my personal Glossary of terms. I do not hold it to be definitive or expect everyone to agree with it -- just a compilation I have put together over the years:

 

Dictionaries and Calligraphic reference books sometimes differ slightly on definitions and descriptions. Here is my own compilation:

 

Letter: A symbol, usually written or printed, representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet.

Alphabet: the ordered set of letters that define a language.

Letterform: the shape of a letter of an alphabet.

Writing: The act or art of forming visible letters.

Handwriting: writing done by hand -- the form of writing peculiar to a particular person.

Writing hand: A particular style of handwriting.

Cursive writing: flowing handwriting with the strokes of succeeding letters often (but not always) joined.

Running hand: handwriting in which the letters are usually slanted and all the words formed without lifting the handwriting instrument.

Handwriting Instruments: Usually edged or pointed nib pens (hand cut quills, canes, reeds, metal "dip" pens, fountain pens, etc.); lead pencils; charcoal sticks; ballpoint & rollerball pens; fiber tip pens .......... etc.

Edged pen nibs: wherein the tip of the nib is usually cut square (sometimes oblique) and beveled in the form of a chisel -- not noticeably flexible.

Pointed pen nibs: wherein the tip of the nib terminates in a point and is sometimes noticeably flexible.

Italic writing: A style of frequently cursive or running handwriting (but not always), mostly rendered using edged pen nibs and other edged tip writing instruments, with letter forms that are narrow and slant upward to the right.

Copperplate writing: A style of running handwriting, rendered using very flexible pointed pen nibs (often offset), that features highly stylized and flourished letterforms meant to emulate copperplate impression printing.

Spencerian writing: (including Palmerian writing, etc.) ubiquitous running handwriting, rendered using pointed pen nibs and various other writing instruments, often employed in schools and for general use.

 

James

 

[KateGladstone]

To differentiate the various things that the word "cursive" stands fot

(and thereby to end disputes about whether "cursive" includes or excludes Italic),

 

how about giving a particular name to those school-models of the last few centuries that join all lower-case letters and that use letter-styles notably "disagreeing" with printed forms?

 

Since these originated later than the first century or so of published copybooks (which used Italic), we can call them the "post-Italic cursives" or the "late cursives."

[Anne-Sophie]

  KateGladstone said:

  Ondina said:

Me, and most people I know who cares about the education of their children will directly take their kids out of a school who, not only teaches cursive, but that emphasizes it.

 

So pelegrim, I'm very pro-cursive, pro reading, comprehension and mostly pro a good sound education.

 

As you see it, Ondina, does favoring "a good sound education" include favoring standard English grammar?

 

 

Kate, it's a typo. Ondina just typed too fast and forgot to put quote between a and education or forgot to remove the "a" before posting.

 

She and Judybug love cursive and so do I. We both have as much right to love cursive as you love italics.

 

Because it is a matter of feelings, denigrating the love we have for cursive with all sorts of scientific or pseudo-scientific arguments is pointless.

 

 

While scrolling caliken pages, I find myself relaxed at the sight of cursive handwriting and tense at the sight of italics, I don't even look at some form of handwriting which remind me of negative historical events.

 

I also visited James Pickering pages, I find that Cataneo's hand has a pleasing roundness to it. I even took two of the capital letter forms for use, in a modified way, in my own handwriting.

 

 

It is really great that we have a choice of some many form of roman letters handwritings.

 

I cannot wait to see examples of Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Kanji, Punjabi... handwriting and calligraphy in this, the reviews and the picture forum.

 

So that we might be appreciate the beauty of the many ways fountain pens are used all over the world.

 

 

[James Pickering]

  JakobS said:

It is interesting that many don't want to limit the teaching of handwriting to printing, but see advanced handwriting as cursive only. For me the term advanced handwriting is rather odd, should this really mean the use of cursive, or simply the use of a legible hand in writing documents? Does teaching and and having students write cursive truly equate to more legible handwriting? Though some people do hold onto cursive handwriting throughout their lives, most students do not, and once they are not mandated to write cursive in school, around middle school for me, many will write in their own individual hand, be it print, cursive, chicken scratch, you name it. I think a diversity of hands should be taught with an overall goal of legible handwriting in schools, and should not be limited to cursive. Just as students may not be able to read and write in cursive if never taught, so too will they not be able to print and write legibly if they are only limited to cursive and wish to seek individuality in their handwriting by rebelling against the strict demands of their teachers, as many high school students do. I remember it took me a little while to develop legible print after I stopped writing in cursive, and I feel that this maybe happening with many students who are found to have bad handwriting as high schoolers and college students. The fundamentals of diverse hands, or the basics of print were forgotten soon after being learned in the rush to cursive. It may be very possible, that when these students find freedom from the mandate of cursive they fail to develop a legible individual hand, and the basics of handwriting may indeed need to be relearned.

That is why I think we must focus on legibility of individual hands over the mandate of cursive, as that is what is important, not only in developing something that can be widely read and understood, but in having a person develop a better sense of themselves and their individuality.

(Paraphrasing from a posting I made in the "Please Print" thread)

I find myself using a "printing" (as used/defined these days) style of bookhand that I was taught by my Arts & Crafts teacher (1939 in England) more and more these days for "everyday" writing (especially correspondence) -- a modified half-uncial hand that I find I can render freely at a reasonable writing speed (without consciously trying for letterform exactness). Of course, it is really an adaptation of Edward Johnston's original half uncial hand (Writing & Illuminating & Lettering).

http://jp29.org/cal373s.jpg

http://jp29.org/cal375s.jpg

http://jp29.org/cal376s.jpg

 

James

 

 

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

"Me, and most people I know who cares about the education of their children will directly take their kids out of a school who, not only teaches cursive, but that emphasizes it.

 

So pelegrim, I'm very pro-cursive, pro reading, comprehension and mostly pro a good sound education. "

 

I thought I knew this language fairly well, but I still have trouble seeing how typographical errors would cause (for instance) using "me" as the subject of a sentence, then making it agree with "cares," then using two relative pronouns ("who ... that") in a construction where standard English gets by with one,

Which of these should I have immediately recognized as a typo, and what should have clued me in to that?

 

 

I never denied that anyone, anywhere, has as much right as anyone else to love any style of writing whatsoever. Awareness that some styles allow faster legible writing cannot possibly destroy or denigrate anyone's love for other styles -- any more than awareness of the nutritional value of broccoli could possibly destroy or denigrate someone's taste for cotton candy.

 

Re:

"While scrolling caliken pages, I find myself relaxed at the sight of cursive handwriting and tense at the sight of italics ... "

 

How long have you had this response (feeling relaxed when you see one writing-style and feeling tense when you see another writing-style), and -- if you know -- how did you come to respond in just that way?

 

Re:

"I don't even look at some form of handwriting which remind me of negative historical events."

 

Which forms of handwriting do you refuse to look at because they remind you of bad times and bad people.

 

Of course, every era of history has included (and therefore every era's handwriting style could remind somebody of) quite a few "negative historical events." Every handwriting style ever invented has, almost certainly, had quite a few VERY nasty people using it: Machiavelli wrote a beautifully proficient Italic -- and Benedict Arnold wrote an equally beautiful, equally proficient post-Italic cursive style -- both very typical of their respective places and times. (How would you feel if someone said "I avoid looking at post-Italic cursive because it reminds me of a traitor to my country" or "I avoid looking at the handwriting or calligraphy of a certain nation or language because it reminds of negative historical events involving people who lived in that nation and/or who spoke that language?")

[voop]

  Titivillus said:

When was the last time you used calculus or talked about cell division. :roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho:

 

Really now?

 

The former, that would be about 2h ago or so. The latter would be a couple of hours earlier.

 

Believe it or not, humanity needs both calculus and cell division....

[voop]

Ho-hum....

 

What good is shodo or hitsuzendo (Japanese calligraphy)?

 

An answer along the lines of aesthetics would be wrong, although calligraphy scrolls certainly are aesthetically pleasing. Rather, it's practiced as a matter of philosophy, self and understanding of life and death -- ichi go ichi ei.

 

Cursive is not (just) a matter of aesthetics either.

 

[ccajackson]

  Titivillus said:

Reading a book about handwriting in America and they brought up an interesting point that with the amount of standardization in the modern world that the one real place that a person can show their individuality is by using their own modified version of cursive. And with the standardization that is forced upon all people maybe cursive should stay.

 

So nevermind.

 

 

K

Oh sure, stir the pot and then run away!

 

I've been trying to think about where I fall in the debate, and I'd say that I'm all for the teaching of cursive in order to provide options. I used cursive almost exclusively until high school, when I took a couple of drafting courses. There, I really learned good printing skills. While I don't print much day-to-day now, I've adopted some of the letters for use in cursive (and there are always those registration forms with all the blocks to which you must conform. ). Seeing the "joy" of legible and charismatic lettering led me to a few introductory calligraphy classes, as well. Exposure to many different styles allows you to develop the personalization you mention. It also opens you up to looking for and/or accepting letters or styles that you feel would enhance your writing. Besides, if we save cursive for only those children who express interest, how many will miss out because they weren't exposed to it and didn't realize that they would be intrigued?

 

I'd also argue that there is a personal satisfaction/pride angle, to be coupled with inertia. Regardless of the method, appealing writing has its place. My wife is embarassed by her own handwriting and puts me in charge of most correspondence. She often laments her chicken scratch, but doesn't want to sit down with any of the improvement methods because there just isn't time (the inertia). Learning the skill set when you have the time, albeit mandated, may help with handwriting self-esteem later.

 

As for overall utility in today's society, I think that there will always be a role for good handwriting. I recently finished a nice little book on the "art" of the Thank You letter, and one of the strongest themes is that it should be handwritten. There's no better way to express your gratitude for another's thoughtfulness than to take time out of your day to write a note. The act of writing carries great weight; which would you rather receive, a 2 page typed letter (even with a really cool font) or a handwritten notecard?

 

I guess I diverged into a support of handwriting in general, but would say that cursive writing is an important tool in handwriting, in my opinion. Through the years, my own bias has been that cursive is elegant and a well-formed hand reflects well on the writer. To that end, if the schools don't teach good handwriting then I'll have to take that role for my kids.

 

Cheers!

C-C

[JHeels]

  KateGladstone said:

  sasdrtx said:

Doesn't everyone need to learn at least enough cursive writing to sign his or her name?

 

Signatures don't legally require cursive, and never have -- please see the material on signatures in the FAQ page of my web-site: http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com/KateFAQ.html (I'm no lawyer, but I had legal counsel go over that page very thoroughly. It cites standard legal references sources.)

 

 

Kate, you're absolutely right. There is no requirement that a signature be written in cursive. In fact, it's perfectly valid for a signature to be a dash, or an "x". Cursive typically just helps with authentication of the mark (an early form of identity theft protection, if you will).

 

Although I don't often use cursive, I do fully support it's teaching in school. If anything, it is a fine art that most people wouldn't discover if it weren't for being taught in school. The point of teaching cursive can be boiled down to the same reasons we like children to be taught drawing and music - to expose them. Though not every music student will play the recorder for the rest of his or her life, every day an Aretha Franklin, Josh Groban (or for that matter Monet, Goya or Picasso) is pushed out of his or her comfort zone in a classroom, only to discover a whole new way of life.

 

Peace,

 

James

[JakobS]

  James Pickering said:

  JakobS said:

It is interesting that many don't want to limit the teaching of handwriting to printing, but see advanced handwriting as cursive only. For me the term advanced handwriting is rather odd, should this really mean the use of cursive, or simply the use of a legible hand in writing documents? Does teaching and and having students write cursive truly equate to more legible handwriting? Though some people do hold onto cursive handwriting throughout their lives, most students do not, and once they are not mandated to write cursive in school, around middle school for me, many will write in their own individual hand, be it print, cursive, chicken scratch, you name it. I think a diversity of hands should be taught with an overall goal of legible handwriting in schools, and should not be limited to cursive. Just as students may not be able to read and write in cursive if never taught, so too will they not be able to print and write legibly if they are only limited to cursive and wish to seek individuality in their handwriting by rebelling against the strict demands of their teachers, as many high school students do. I remember it took me a little while to develop legible print after I stopped writing in cursive, and I feel that this maybe happening with many students who are found to have bad handwriting as high schoolers and college students. The fundamentals of diverse hands, or the basics of print were forgotten soon after being learned in the rush to cursive. It may be very possible, that when these students find freedom from the mandate of cursive they fail to develop a legible individual hand, and the basics of handwriting may indeed need to be relearned.

That is why I think we must focus on legibility of individual hands over the mandate of cursive, as that is what is important, not only in developing something that can be widely read and understood, but in having a person develop a better sense of themselves and their individuality.

(Paraphrasing from a posting I made in the "Please Print" thread)

I find myself using a "printing" (as used/defined these days) style of bookhand that I was taught by my Arts & Crafts teacher (1939 in England) more and more these days for "everyday" writing (especially correspondence) -- a modified half-uncial hand that I find I can render freely at a reasonable writing speed (without consciously trying for letterform exactness). Of course, it is really an adaptation of Edward Johnston's original half uncial hand (Writing & Illuminating & Lettering).

http://jp29.org/cal373s.jpg

http://jp29.org/cal375s.jpg

http://jp29.org/cal376s.jpg

 

James

 

Really beautiful James! I myself am looking to make the Running Bookhand I am practicing into an everyday hand. But, I need to find either a smaller italic nib or pen and nib to do so, My Rotring Artpen 2.3mm just isn't practical for notes, stories and such. What I like about bookhand is it seems to be a hand that can be more quickly written than half unical or foundation hand.

 

On another point, It's interesting that this topic has taken off so greatly, interesting to see everyones opinions and experiences!!

 

 

Edited April 8, 2009 by JakobS

[KateGladstone]

C-C -- where, how, and how soon can I buy your book on thank-you notes?