Fast, Neat Handwriting

[nunez]

  On 9/29/2010 at 11:55 PM, wallylynn said:

  On 9/28/2010 at 8:42 AM, nunez said:

Is print/italic really faster than cursive? Or are most practitioners better in italics because that's what they practice?

 

There had to be a reason to develop the cursive scripts, and I assume it was a practical one. On the surface it seems the round, joined up letters should be more 'fluid' and easier to write at speed than print/italics.

 

My own experience. Learned print and D'Nealian cursive in school. Fast forward many years and my main writing evolved into an italic style, mostly print, but occasional joins. Printing was faster than cursive. Occasional joins faster than fully lifting the pen. Changing direction easier and faster than clean smooth loops. My "h" often looks like a joined "l" and "i" instead of the traditional giraffe. Lots of joins are extraneous and take up time. Why write an upstroke when it's not necessary? Books are printed, lots of cursive letters just look funny compared to that.

 

As for data, I think the winners for speed in the handwriting contests were rarely looped cursive.

 

I don't remember the history (look for posts by kate and caliken). I think looped cursive stems from when quills were the norm. It was cleaner and easier to draw a monoline than risk lots of blobs from constantly lifting and placing the point down.

 

Interestingly, I just tried a Lamy M32 and they exhibit a sort of 'blob' behaviour if you hold the pen in one spot for too long. Not tried it on decent paper yet, but it might be just the thing to encourage not keeping the tip in one place for too long.

 

Now, does anyone have any 'hard' data on the development of Spencerian cursive? I'm not doubting wallylynn, but the wikipedia entry for 'cursive' indicates that it's got a long history, however it seems to cover a broad domain. If you look far enough back, it seems every culture since the Egyptians has developed a shorter, easier to write script (although in that case it's obvious why they would).

 

Regards,

- SteveN

[rdh]

I bought the book Write Now, by Getty and Dubay, which is a workbook that teaches Italic and cursive italic handwriting. They have a web site you can check out. It has the following image comparing cursive italic and looped cursive, which is what many of us learned in school. The entire alphabet is included. By the way, the book is fun. I highly recommend it.

 

http://www.handwritingsuccess.com/images/page-two.jpg

 

Dave

[wykpenguin]

Cursive Italic has become such an umbrella term that it has come to cover almost all handwriting forms except the most Cursive looking cursives.

[wallylynn]

  On 10/1/2010 at 11:11 AM, nunez said:

Interestingly, I just tried a Lamy M32 and they exhibit a sort of 'blob' behaviour if you hold the pen in one spot for too long. Not tried it on decent paper yet, but it might be just the thing to encourage not keeping the tip in one place for too long.

I think that's bleeding, the paper just sucking up ink like a tissue. I was thinking more along the lines of dripping, where the ink has the chance to accumulate at the tip when you lift the point, then when you touch back down, there's extra ink. Some people like this shading feature of writing with a fountain pen. I imagine it would be more exaggerated with a quill.

 

  On 10/1/2010 at 11:11 AM, nunez said:

Now, does anyone have any 'hard' data on the development of Spencerian cursive?

Does this help?

http://www.iampeth.com/golden_age.php

[caliken]

  On 10/1/2010 at 12:32 PM, rdh said:

It has the following image comparing cursive italic and looped cursive

http://www.handwritingsuccess.com/images/page-two.jpg

Although I greatly admire "Write Now" and consider it to be the best book on the subject currently in print, I do feel that in order to enforce their pro-italic preference, the authors have been a bit unfair in this comparison.

 

Whilst the names have been written with very close inter-line spacing, the italic has been written with particularly short ascenders and descenders which avoids the letters clashing with one another. As a result, the overall effect is clear and clean. By comparison, the looped cursive lettering is far too cramped and no attempt has been made to separate the ascenders and descenders from clashing and in fact they often overlap to the extent of affecting legibility and the whole result is a bit of a jumbled mess.

 

Normal inter-line spacing for both the italic and looped cursive examples would have given a much fairer comparison between the two styles. IMO.

 

caliken

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

"Whilst the names have been written with very close inter-line spacing,the italic has been written with particularly short ascenders anddescenders which avoids the letters clashing with one another."

 

Note that the particular Italic series in question (Getty-Dubay) includes very close inter-line spacing as a valid and, indeed, encouraged option. Their stated reason is to provide a style that will facilitate writing in tight spaces when necessary (e.g., when filling out forms or -- as here -- making lists) -- however, I suspect that another and unstated reason of theirs is to compete with several current non-Itlaic curricula (e.g., D'Nealian) that save paper (to minimize the size of the books) through laying out the handwriting exemplars so that the descender-space of one line is the ascender-space of the next. (To prevent descenders/ascenders from overlapping, the proprietors of D'Nealian -- and presumably of other similarly prepared books -- edit their exemplar-texts so that a descender-letter will never appear directly above an ascender-letter: e.g., if a shopping-list drafted and submitted as a possible exemplar contains the word "eggs" directly above the word "milk," either the two words will be transposed or one of them changed so that the misuse of space does not become obvious. The line-spacing on handwriting practice paper issued to children in the D'N program is similarly designed so that the descender-space of one line is the ascender-space of the next line.)

 

If nothing else, then, the comparative columns of two scripts (Italic and looped cursive) effectively demonstrate which of the two styles will suffer less in cramped quarters. Italic ascenders/descenders can be shortened with far less evident disproportion than looped cursive ascenders/descenders could have been. (If the looped cursive ascenders/descenders had been shortened in the comparison -- like the Italic ascenders/descenders -- instead of being permitted to overlap, the looped cursive column would not have been much more legible than it now is. Shortened ascenders are far harder to distinguish, and far uglier to see, in a looped style than in an unlooped style.)

 

I would, however, have preferred to also see other comparative pages of the same material differently arranged -- with sufficient room given to both styles for their respective full lengths of ascenders/descenders. (Maybe Caliken -- or someone else adept in both styles -- can write such a version.) However, such a more strictly comparative treatment of the two styles (with Italic ascenders/descenders made as long as they usually are, and with the spacing between lines in both name-lists made large enough for neither style's successive lines to overlap) would still reveal the Italic as /a/ more legible (more quickly decipherable, even if seen from farther off), and /b/ less prone to waste space (because looped cursive ascenders/descenders need to be longer than Italic ascenders/descenders to look their best. If you write the word "boy" in Italic and in looped cursive, with the "o" 5 millimeters high in either case, the Italic "b" and "y" will normally each measure 8 - 10 millimeters from top to bottom (the body of the letter + its ascender or descender) -- but the looped cursive "b" and "y" for the same size of "o" will normally each measure 12 - 15 millimeters from top to bottom.

 

(So, should a side-by-side comparison of Italic and looped cursive be line-spaced according to the best ascender/descender height for the Italic, or according to the best ascender/descender height for the looped cursive, or according to some compromise that would show neither style to its best advantage?)

[caliken]

If nothing else, then, the comparative columns of two scripts (Italic and looped cursive) effectively demonstrate which of the two styles will suffer less in cramped quarters. Italic ascenders/descenders can be shortened with far less evident disproportion than looped cursive ascenders/descenders could have been. (If the looped cursive ascenders/descenders had been shortened in the comparison -- like the Italic ascenders/descenders -- instead of being permitted to overlap, the looped cursive column would not have been much more legible than it now is. Shortened ascenders are far harder to distinguish, and far uglier to see, in a looped style than in an unlooped style.)

 

I certainly agree with the above.

 

Because italic is such a forgiving style of lettering, it still looks great regardless of the length of its ascenders & descenders. This cannot be said of looped cursive which looks awful with shortened, stunted, disproportionate looped ascenders & descenders.

 

I feel that it would have been fairer to have compared the two styles at their best, with the recognized, generally accepted inter-line spacing for both with ascenders & descenders clear of each other. The list of looped cursive words would then have taken up much more vertical space than the italic list, and if space-saving is an objective, then this would have shown italic to be the more effective option, without question.

 

I just feel that, to prove a point, looped cursive was shown unnecessarily cramped and ugly.

 

caliken

[curiouslizard]

I want to thank the handwriting experts for their generous efforts to educate and inspire us. It's because of posts by Caliken, Kate, Ann and others that I've renewed my own long dormant interest in calligraphy.

 

Liz

Edited October 2, 2010 by curiouslizard

[caliken]

Thanks, Liz, it's nice to be of help

 

caliken

Edited October 2, 2010 by caliken

[KateGladstone]

Re:

  On 10/2/2010 at 1:28 PM, caliken said:

Because italic is such a forgiving style of lettering, it still looks great regardless of the length of its ascenders & descenders. This cannot be said of looped cursive which looks awful with shortened, stunted, disproportionate looped ascenders & descenders.

 

I feel that it would have been fairer to have compared the two styles at their best, with the recognized, generally accepted inter-line spacing for both with ascenders & descenders clear of each other.

 

 

I also agree that it would have been fairer to show both styles at their best.

 

Caliken -- you, of all people here, have the expertise to write both styles at their best --

would you care to re-do that sample name-list and post it here, the way that it should have been spaced?

Then we can discuss both styles at their best.

 

Re:

  On 10/2/2010 at 1:28 PM, caliken said:

The list of looped cursive words would then have taken up much morevertical space than the italic list, and if space-saving is anobjective, then this would have shown italic to be the more effectiveoption, without question.

 

I agree -- Italic comes out ahead no matter how you arrange a comparison:

 

between both styles spaced the same,

or between both styles spaced at their respective best spacing.

[Yaniel]

Wow, this thread took off! Thanks to everyone for all the information and I think I'll concentrate on italics since it'll be more efficient day to day than cursive. Looking at all the calligraphy on this forum is inspiring, but for now I'd just like to write a legible paragraph

[caliken]

  On 10/2/2010 at 10:55 PM, KateGladstone said:

would you care to re-do that sample name-list and post it here, the way that it should have been spaced?

Then we can discuss both styles at their best.

 

In response to Kate's request, here is a side-by-side example of italic cursive and looped cursive (Business Writing). In keeping with the Getty/Dubay examples, I have written these monoline and with the same pen and at the same x height. I have spaced the lines at what I consider to be the minimum in both cases in the interest of legibility and appearance i.e. 2 times x height for Italic and 3 times x height for Looped Cursive. I know that there are examples of Business Writing with closer inter-line spacing and whilst legibility is relatively unimpaired, the appearance does suffer IMO and, as Kate explained, it becomes necessary occasionally, to alter the wording to avoid collision of the loops. Shortening the loops to accomodate, looks stunted and absurd and destroys the beauty of this style of lettering.

 

From this example it is immediately obvious that Looped Cursive takes up more space on the page both vertically and horizontally and if this is the only consideration, then, without doubt, Italic wins.

 

However, there are many other factors in choosing a style of lettering to adopt and study and I look forward to any responses and opinions from Kate and others on this perennial subject.

 

I did think of starting a new topic, but I feel that this does relate to the original posting and is relevant.

 

caliken

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Lettering605.jpg

Edited October 5, 2010 by caliken

[Johnny Appleseed]

Another advantage of an italic hand is that there is usually little difference between joined and un-joined versions. Look at the difference between a "print" b and some of the looped cursive b forms out there - they are very different and in some cases difficult to even recognize is unfamiliar with the particular style.

 

  On 9/28/2010 at 8:42 AM, nunez said:

There had to be a reason to develop the cursive scripts, and I assume it was a practical one. On the surface it seems the round, joined up letters should be more 'fluid' and easier to write at speed than print/italics.

 

I don't think that the preference for looped cursive scripts really had anything to do with more "fluid" writing. Italic and the cursive italic styles were more rooted in fluid, fast and legible writing - they were developed by Italian scribes in the 15th century who were trying to crank out books for the church and developing Renessiance, where optimizing speed and legibility was desired.

 

The looped cursive styles popular in America had their roots in the 18th and 19th century. Part of the development was stylistically driven by the writing instrument of choice - flexible, pointed quills that allowed for notable line variation with varied pressure (the italic scribes preferred stiffer edged quills). Writing with a flexible quill or a pointed flexible nib does, in my experience, lend itself to a more joined and looped style of writing. I find it easier to write with a copper-plate derived hand when I am using a flex nib, due to the writing angle and the need to make constant adjustments to the writing pressure to keep control of the line. I find keeping the nib on the paper allows for more control and seems to work better. I have experimented with some italic-inspired hands for a flex nib, but I tend to want to fully join the words, more so than with a firm or edged nib. I don't know if that is the experience of more practiced writers/calligraphers.

 

I suspect, however, that the main reason for the development of the various English-round hand scripts was simply aesthetic. This was the era of the printing press, so the mass reproduction of text was no longer a scribal duty. For writing to distinguish itself, it had to have aesthetic qualities distinct from the legible but mechanical qualities of printed type. The dramatic thick-thin variations and fine, looped hairlines that developed in the English Round hand are extremely elegant contrasts to the rigidity of mechanical type. In addition, writing was more than just an efficient means of communication - it was also a mark of education, social status, and at times personal virtue.

 

So I would argue that aesthetic considerations were the primary factors behind the development of highly-looped round-hand derived styles.

 

Also, note that much of our modern looped cursive comes from simplifying more ornate 19th Century and adapting them to a non-flexible mono-line pen, as became the norm from the mid 1920s on. They did not arise from adding loops to printed or italic styles (well, other than some of the late 20th century styles like DeNelian and HWT), but from streamlining highly ornate, looped styles.

 

John

[rdh]

Thanks, caliken. Beautiful comparison between the two. I am enjoying learning cursive italic, but it may be because I have been using either printing or looped cursive all my life. i like the change. Its kind of like getting new clothes.

 

Dave

[fozzy_d]

Thanks for all the references Caliken!

 

I've been practicing with the looped cursive and the connected italics for the past days and I must say it's really hard unlearning the muscle memory of the pseudo-linked-print-script I write with everyday.

 

It's fun though and it's like learning how to drive a car... or something...