The Lost Art Of Writing

[kernando]

...

What is interesting is that a current popular way of teaching handwriting (in maybe 20% of schools) is for children to begin joining letters right from the start, so that they never learn how to print !. ...

 

Thinking about skills which appear and disappear as needed, do you remember that period of a couple of years after mobile phones came on the scene, but before predictive text became widespread? Teenagers quickly learnt the complex patterns of button pressing needed to send a message almost at the speed of speech. Easily as complex as those needed to make fine lace by hand, I would imagine. All gone - firstly with the rise of predictive text, and now touch screens, which have bred a new sort of one handed 'hunt and peck'.

 

John

 

You had me smiling, as in almost laughing, at the lace comparison. I hardly ever send text messages, so I never got good at the number pad thing, and I have used the other kinds. With the thumb keyboards they at least got to use two thumbs. With the touch screens that magnify the selected letter and then select upon lifthing the finger, I wonder if the pecking gets replaced with more of a picking motion.

 

I never do understand hunting and pecking from anybody significantly older than I am though, because I can use a manual typewriter, and anybody who grew up having to use manuals should find keyboards really easy, and put their hands down, and stop looking down.

 

You got me nostalgic for the promise of handwriting recognition that supposed to learn to read people's cursive, like Newton, before Palm Pilot expected people to learn a modified alphabet.

 

To go backwards to handwriting, I'd read about the whole learning cursive only thing. And didn't it used to be that way before? I've been glad that I was never really taught to write in ball and stick. When we really started handwriting in 1st grade (that's after kindergarten here, so ages 6-7), we were taught in D'Nealian which is a dumbed-down (but not too bad) thing in between italic and disjointed cursive, and I thought the ball and stick printing that some kids picked up somewhere was weird. I would have preferred it if our classes had used a curlier style model though.

[The Good Captain]

You know, I've just spotted an advert in one of our local magazines for a 'Cursive Writing Club'.

I'm wondering whether to join or not.

[ildbig]

Reading this is interesting. The thought that cursive is now useless? I don't know how I could survive without cursive. How does one pass quick and legible notes in a deposition without cursive? How does one take notes on a computer-inaccessible phone conversation without cursive? How do I even write my packing list for a vacation without cursive (printing is a poor option -- it takes too long).

 

In college: I can see using a computer to take notes in a history class. But what about a math or economics class, where one has to draw graphs or write equations? Same for an exam in those subjects? (Assuming the prof has enough drive to require and read essay questions.)

 

Handwriting is certainly much less required today than previously; there is no doubt about it. But it is hard to say it is extinct -- especially in many (modern) fields and professions. If anything, I wish I and my colleagues knew shorthand!

[Mickey]

..........

 

No, I find it odd that people can't imagine that there are people right now who rarely if ever see handwritten documents, are years out of practice for reading such documents, and aren't particularly interested in reviving such skills. The have other priorities and other things to do. They're not stupid, they're not lazy, they simply don't care about deciphering documents written in cursive handwriting. My thoughts are addressed mainly at the idea that it's risible that someone can't decipher cursive, or that there's something wrong with people who aren't interested in doing so.

 

.....................

One of us is going round in circles and not listening - that's a sure sign to leave off. But I agree on the last point - I for one merely said that it would be better that they did, not that they were stupid or any of that - I did, however, note that their choices were being restricted, their interests sculpted, how I thought this was happening, and why I disliked it.

 

I'm getting into this thread rather late, but I have to say I generally agree with you. Being unable to read documents in their original form is to lose some of the writer's intent. Not only that, one likely under-appreciates the time it took to put the idea on the page and the amount of effort it took to frame the thoughts before putting them permanently on the page. (You can often tell how long a writer suffered over a thought, and thus an indication of its significance, from the fluidity of the writing.)

 

This may be an extreme analogy, but how well does one understand Dostoevsky if one reads him only in translation. A similar example: I have a copy of the Torah, translated by Rabbi Fox. This translation is a monumental effort to reconstruct what is lost to the reader who is unable to read the text in the original Hebrew and with a full knowledge of the tropes and subtle meanings which are lost in unannotated "interpretations." Context gradually disappears with each reinterpretation and reproduction. Entropy.

 

Not being able to read cursive also limits the possibility of reading marginalia, which is of prime importance when you're trying to understand how people make decisions. Not being able to read manuscript, before the printers and editors 'clean things up,' is to divorce oneself from potentially important parts of one's cultural history. (You also put yourself at the mercy of "interpreters," who may have agendas quite at odds with the original writers.) Again by way of analogy, compare a manuscript from Mozart's hand with one from Beethoven's. There is an education right there. (BTW, trying to read music manuscript is often as difficult as reading a prescription scrawled by your doctor. You can't even aspire to artist level performances of early music if you are unable read the original notation, tablature, etc.)

 

A great deal is made of the accelerated learning possible with modern aids, such as calculators and computers and by removing all the "unnecessary" things from the curriculum. Unfortunatly, things, sometimes very important things are lost by not following the old paths, at least for a while.. Does a student who can't reliably do fairly rudimentary calculations without a calculator have the same sense of numbers as the student who was forced to acquire the requisite skills? What is lost by not learning to use a slip stick? (My first slide rule was circular. Being circular still didn't make carrying it cool.) It may be possible to build a skyscraper on a foundation of sand, but will it stand? Hard to tell.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mickey

[KateGladstone]

<br />I really don't understand people who say they can't "read" cursive. Aside from a few letters (i.e. f,b, and z namely) most of the letters are formed the same way. And even then, you can guess what those letters are based on the rest of the word.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

Besides the most different-looking letters (b, f, k, r, s, z, and almost all the capitals), the other letters in cursive also have large differences from their printed counterparts -- these differences occur at the beginnings and/or ends of he letters, making it very hard for many people (I was one of them, until age 24) to discern where a letter-part stops being part of the letter and starts being part of a join.

[KateGladstone]

Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing (done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

[KateGladstone]

Reading cursive remains very useful ... so keep in mind that one doesn't need to write cursive in order to learn how to read it. One doesn't need to write a letter-style in order to find it decipherable, or most of us could not read even slightly decorative type fonts. (Anyone who can read print - even a five-year-old - can be taught in 30 to 60 minutes to read cursive, whether or not the reader also wishes to learn to write the same way).

[KateGladstone]

For those who (like me) enjoy electronic handwriting recognition: on various smartphones and on the iPad, you can use an app called WritePad which is inexpensive and quite good at reading handwriting.

[beak]

Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing (done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

This is very interesting to me - I have always found that, all other things being equal, cursive was the quickest way to write. I realize that I don't have your experience here - what am I missing, do you think?

[in the flow]

Speed? I use a mix of cursive and print, i.e. my handwriting is "selectively cursive". If I write in full cursive, I find it slower because of the extra strokes I need to complete. Then again, maybe it's slower because I don't use it all the time. umm and I dot my i's and cross my t's on the way

 

Taking a look at a small class sample of university students' work, I find: full cursive, cursive+print mix, print, computer type. It's all legible, and some degree of effort has been made in the legibility of the penmanship.

[mstone]

Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing (done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

This is very interesting to me - I have always found that, all other things being equal, cursive was the quickest way to write. I realize that I don't have your experience here - what am I missing, do you think?

 

Familiarity and practice -- it's just as hard for people who use cursive exclusively to switch to a different style as it is for people not accustomed to cursive to switch to it.

 

 

As to the other person questioning how to write fast without cursive, look into a joined italic style rather than a roundhand style. It's just as fast, and tends to degrade better. One thing to remember is that those beautiful exemplars of copperplate or Spencerian were not done particularly fast. If you want real speed without typing, then you need to learn shorthand (another almost-dead form).

Edited May 14, 2011 by mstone

[Mickey]

Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing (done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

This is very interesting to me - I have always found that, all other things being equal, cursive was the quickest way to write. I realize that I don't have your experience here - what am I missing, do you think?

 

I'm with you on this, Beak. The repetitive lifting of the pen for each letter is wasted motion and energy. This style, when performed rapidly, also tends to decouple the arm and shoulder as potential energy sources, raising the risk of RSI. One may be able to print more rapidly than write cursively for short sprints, but for repeated, long writing sessions, I seriously doubt printing is as fast, let alone faster. It is certainly not as efficient. Remember, the commercial hands, from which modern cursive styles descend, were intended for rapid, continuous writing. Individual character writing styles (e.g., printing) were well known when the commercial hands were created, yet, almost universally, their developers chose cursive as the more efficient process.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mickey

[KateGladstone]

Beak - you're leaving out the fact that the joins of cursive differ in their efficiency. Some of the joins in cursive -- the easiest ones, seen in "an" and "on" when they're made with joins that are not too curly and are just short horizontal or diagonal lines -- really are faster than lifting the pen ... BUT other, more complexly shaped joins (such as those in the combinations"sc" and "pa" and "gh" and "qu") are harder and slower to form well than a pen-lift would be. The more curves/changes of direction inhabit a join or other shape, the more difficult that shape will be to do well ... and the slower it will be, too: it is the *straight* line that's the shortest distance between two points.So if you compare a 100%-joined "American schoolbook" cursive script with a 100%-joinless "American schoolbook" printing the printing may be slower because even the efficient joins aren't being used ... but most non-users of cursive aren't printing in "schoolbook" fashion: they're using a few of the *efficient* joins within and between the letters.

[Mickey]

Beak - you're leaving out the fact that the joins of cursive differ in their efficiency. Some of the joins in cursive -- the easiest ones, seen in "an" and "on" when they're made with joins that are not too curly and are just short horizontal or diagonal lines -- really are faster than lifting the pen ... BUT other, more complexly shaped joins (such as those in the combinations"sc" and "pa" and "gh" and "qu") are harder and slower to form well than a pen-lift would be.

 

This is mostly a matter of familiarity and practice. I think you have over-weighted the time overhead for these joins, ascribing to them either drawn-hand times or the overhead observed during the skill acquisition phase. By the time a writer is forming common letter groups, syllables, and words as gestalts, the time delta for these "difficult" joins is negligible. Not only that, your argument ignores the optimization possible in a truly speed-tuned cursive, e.g., context-defined alternative forms and joins. This may be trading the ultimate beauty of the resulting script for speed, but beauty is not an important goal when one needs to write quickly. The sensible goals are speed, legibility, and, for long sessions, stamina.

 

I would hesitate gainsaying the wisdom of the pen men and women who designed the commercial hands of the late 19th and 20th centuries, when the combination of speed and legibility where absolute necessities. They could have easily have chose to construct printing hands. Instead, they designed speed optimized cursive hands. N.b., most (if not all?) shorthands are cursive.

[KateGladstone]

Context-defined alternative forms and joins (a simple example would be the way that most lower-case cursive letters must change sfter cursive b/o/v/w) are an obstacle because they impose the task of deciding when to use which form. The consideration is not beauty, but legibility (and the maintenance of legibility at increasing speed). My experience writing in both styles (once I finally mastered both) is that 100% joined styles aren't faster than others unless with some sacrifice of legibility. Of course, I may be a pretty slow writer -- I do not know: my top speed is only around 150 LLPM (legibile letters per minute) and I would be interested to know the LLPMs of expert devotees of cursive. (I would probably write rather faster if I did not write as large as I usually do: typical x-height for me is almost 1 centimeter.)Remember that:/1/"Negligible" instants of time, and instances of effort, add up amazingly with repetition throughout a page or a longer document./2/Among the writings of those who claim it as a _sine_qua_non_ to join all letters for speed, I can usually detect brief unconscious pen-lifts here and there. I've never, for instance, seen anyone write "antidisestablishmentarianism" without a single pen-lift, however brief (I've given this word, sometimes, as a challenge to those who claim that they neither perform nor tolerate any lifting of the pen within any word) ... and seldom if ever have I seen even more ordinary words (such as "grandmotherly" or "thankfulness" or "tyrannosaurus") performed with the pen in constant unlifted motion./3/If completely joined handwriting allowed such advantages in speed, how does it happen that -- when we have the original drafts for documents which were later copied out by a professional penman for public display -- the original drafts usually abound in pen-lifts? Surely a draft involves more speed than a final fair copy. The most famous example of this phenomenon, of course, is the visible difference between Thomas Jefferson's rough drafts for the Declaration of Independence -- http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt001.html -- and the famous finished copy (written out by professional penman Timothy Matlack) which you have doubtless seen reproduced, but which you can see again at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg ...if 100%-joined writing was the faster kind, then why didn't Jefferson draft the Declaration in a 100%-joined style/3/By the way: at least 50% of shorthands, past and present are *not* 100%-joined (if that is how you are defining cursive).

[Mickey]

Context-defined alternative forms and joins (a simple example would be the way that most lower-case cursive letters must change sfter cursive b/o/v/w) are an obstacle because they impose the task of deciding when to use which form.

 

Faulty premise. The above is true only during the skills acquisition stage of learning. As anyone who ever learned to type would tell you, you don't learn to type t-h-e, you learn to type "the." It is a gestalt, a single gesture, in practical usage requiring no decision making at all. The rest of your argument thus falls with your premise.

 

Learned physical actions are not transmitted to muscles item by item; the neurological overhead would all but paralyze us. You don't need to decide everytime how b/o/v/w are joined; you learn how to make those joins and then do them automatically, unless you are doing a drawn hand, or are impressing some visual aesthetic (other than legibility) on the writing. Perhaps printing might be initially faster for rote copying of text in a language one cannot read or speak, but even then, the gain would disappear once regular patterns of letters were recognized and converted into morphemes (of unknown meaning) and even larger repeating structures which could then be re-sythesized as "gestures." At this point the inherent physical efficiencies of cursive would win out. It is not necessary to know the meaning of "Mxyzptlk" to learn how to write it as a one or two gestures, rather than 8.

 

I also suggest you take a look at some of the pioneering work done by Ben Libet et al. in neurophysiology, particularly regarding conscious volitional acts. You might very well discover that most of what you are assuming is a decision was not really a decision at all. (N.b., the mixing of tenses in the previous sentence was not inadvertent.)

[beak]

I don't have the experience of the two previous debaters, just my own experience and 'a little learning'. I do have decades of experience with both printing and cursive; I write an ordinary running hand daily for letters and almost everything else, but have also a printing hand developed form a lifetime of professional draughting and diagram making.

 

In my case, the running writing is simply much faster than the printing, although I will hazard that I can print (block capitals) legibly faster than most. When this subject came up in another thread several weeks ago, I wrote a whole page in both hands and the cursive approached twice the speed of the printing.

 

My cursive certainly does have gaps here and there (pen lifts) and from a straw poll of those around me today, I imagine that the vast majority of cursive user's ordinary daily writing does so too. And I do understand the difference between presentation and vintage business hands, and 'ordinary' script - would examples better be taken from personal letters than presentation documents? Because my script has lifts, would this disqualify it as cursive to anyone?

 

I think my reason for going on about the speed of running writing is that it is being used as an argument against teaching it at all, and I think that this is a false argument and a great detriment to the young. I don't say that it is quicker to learn (I don't know) but once learned, it is faster to use. IMO.

[ildbig]

Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing (done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

I imagine that must be just a matter of practice, no?

[Chevalier]

I can't help it, from my european point of view, knowing cursive (not talking about actually using it, some people prefer a mixed print style) and knowing how to use a slide rule (just an example for all those skills, that are basic knowledge) is so important, that everybody, that doesn't know it, is leaving a pretty bad impression behind.

A cv has to be written by hand in some european countries, and being unable to write a cv, in neat and legible cursive, might prevent you from getting the job. Of cause, the education system is to blame in some countries, but that's another story.

 

The excuse that's always at hand (quick as it's lame) is the computer. It's like having a child that never learned to walk, because we have bikes and cars today (or not teaching basic math, just because there are calculators).

 

There is scientific proof, that those things are important for our brain development, because it's a form of direct interaction. Imagine what could happen in 50-100 years. Only few people will know everything in their field (including the basics) and the rest will become trained users (read monkeys), that will be unable to do anything besides using "their software".

 

I am usually not a 1984 guy, but this is how everything started. Ok, I am getting a little paranoid about this matter, but I simply don't get it. Writing cursive (like all those other skills, that pupils aren't learning anymore) isn't rocket science. It took centuries before ordinary people were allowed to learn how to write properly, and we are slowly giving up this privilege now.

[andru]

Chevalier, thanks for posting as I totally missed this thread first time 'round.

 

Just want to add that, I believe the reason I use cursive script is because it reduces the chances of skipping with fountain pens. Simple as that! Particularly the iffy pens/ink I used before joining FPN and "getting serious". I can't help wondering if this was a factor in the development of cursive styles? And the price I pay for a non-semi-detached style is that it is indeed slower than printing. But if I want to write quickly, typing is preferred -- at least 5x faster than printing or cursive!

 

Now back into reading these interesting posts...