The Lost Art Of Writing

[KateGladstone]

Thanks to Mickey for clarifying his argument, which I'd indeed misunderstood.I entirely agree that one must read cursive, to read cursively written documents of any importance. I disagree that reding cursive requires writing cursive. One can easily and quickly teach even a child to read cursive, if the child can already read other writing, by showing him or her how each unfamiliar letterform developed, step by step, from a form that the student already knows how to read. This toes a minute or so per upper- or lower-case letter, and can (and should) be done routinely at home or in school.

[DAYoung]

THE ULTIMATE BATTLE FOR PET SUPREMACY

 

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/DOG.jpg

 

VS.

 

[DAYoung]

  On 7/11/2011 at 4:50 AM, Mickey said:

the most obvious difference between language expressed via writing (pen, brush, chisel, etc.) versus that expressed via keyboard is the fairly extensive spacial considerations in the former and the relative absence of such in the latter. In written expression, visual systems are active to monitor both content and design (execution in space) on the page. This design monitoring (feedback) is dynamically active at the stroke, letter, word, and page levels. In keyboarding, content may be monitored similarly, but regarding design, the first two aspects are fixed. The font is not dynamically created or recreated by the keyboarder. Feedback loops absolutely necessary for writing can thus be bypassed for keyboarding.

 

By the way, this is a very interesting point. I'm surprised it wasn't picked up.

 

It's a straightforward but important suggestion: writing longhand requires very particular physical and mental skills missing in typing.

[Mickey]

  On 7/12/2011 at 3:59 AM, DAYoung said:

THE ULTIMATE BATTLE FOR PET SUPREMACY

 

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/DOG.jpg

 

VS.

 

 

Guess which one weighed 125 pounds and stood 28 inches at the shoulder.

[DAYoung]

  On 7/12/2011 at 4:27 AM, Mickey said:

  On 7/12/2011 at 3:59 AM, DAYoung said:

THE ULTIMATE BATTLE FOR PET SUPREMACY

 

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/DOG.jpg

 

VS.

 

 

Guess which one weighed 125 pounds and stood 28 inches at the shoulder.

 

 

Hmm. The word 'VS.', chiseled out of hardwood?

 

 

[Apotheosis]

I think there's no right or wrong to this - just different POVs and opinions.

 

This article reflects how times have changed and what was previously common practice now slowly becoming an increasingly rarer practice. Most of the younger ones have different priorities now so what suited us before may not now for many of them.

 

Occasionally, I'm told that my writing isnt legible. Hey no problem, I adjust and write print instead.

 

Penmanship is not a lost art just yet, and with what I've seen here in the forum threads - nowehere near in the deep end of the ocean yet.

[Mickey]

  On 7/12/2011 at 4:10 AM, DAYoung said:

  On 7/11/2011 at 4:50 AM, Mickey said:

the most obvious difference between language expressed via writing (pen, brush, chisel, etc.) versus that expressed via keyboard is the fairly extensive spacial considerations in the former and the relative absence of such in the latter. In written expression, visual systems are active to monitor both content and design (execution in space) on the page. This design monitoring (feedback) is dynamically active at the stroke, letter, word, and page levels. In keyboarding, content may be monitored similarly, but regarding design, the first two aspects are fixed. The font is not dynamically created or recreated by the keyboarder. Feedback loops absolutely necessary for writing can thus be bypassed for keyboarding.

 

By the way, this is a very interesting point. I'm surprised it wasn't picked up.

 

It's a straightforward but important suggestion: writing longhand requires very particular physical and mental skills missing in typing.

 

Which suggests two things to me. 1) Writing longhand more effectively exercises the brain. If, as some believe, keeping the brain stimulated confers some protection against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, writing longhand would likely provide superior prophylaxis. 2) Writing longhand, since it requires coordinated activities from more parts of the brain, may provide a superior engine for synthesis and resynthesis (of ideas).

Edited July 12, 2011 by Mickey

[ParkerQuink]

Currently being a part of a high school environment, I see that cursive is frowned upon by students and teachers do not remotely care whether students print or write in cursive. I write in cursive all the time and most students do not like it at all. They claim they can't read it but I reply kindly letting them know that they too were taught it and it is a far superior method of putting thoughts down on paper. Not only is cursive more enjoyable for me to write, it is much extremely more efficient and fast to write in one continuous flowing work without picking my pen up from the paper for every letter. Combine cursive with the use of a fountain pen and one is good to go! Goodbye computers.

[The Good Captain]

At least the power supply to my pens is continuous, and I don't have to keep up with technological advances. You put liquid in a tube and trust that it will come out of a much narrower opening in a controlled manner.

That's all there is to it.

[DAYoung]

  On 7/12/2011 at 4:50 AM, Mickey said:

Which suggests two things to me. 1) Writing longhand more effectively exercises the brain. If, as some believe, keeping the brain stimulated confers some protection against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, writing longhand would likely provide superior prophylaxis. 2) Writing longhand, since it requires coordinated activities from more parts of the brain, may provide a superior engine for synthesis and resynthesis (of ideas).

 

This is an empirical question, so I'm hesitant to speculate too ambitiously.

 

But I'm fairly certain that writing a non-fiction book, for example, is more than enough to keep my brain stimulated. By pen or computer, the brain's working hard.

 

Whether longhand encourages the formation and transformation of ideas is another question. As I've remarked elsewhere, the pen does encourage a certain meditative focus. But it can also leave me more vague or waffly. What's common to both is an exploratory mood of sorts. This certainly backs up your idea, but I'd like to see research to back it up. (As would you, I'm guessing.)

Edited July 12, 2011 by DAYoung

[beak]

  On 7/12/2011 at 10:32 AM, DAYoung said:

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

 

Whether longhand encourages the formation and transformation of ideas is another question. ...................

My observation here, for what it's worth, is that such are at their best when familiarity and comfort with the writing medium is very high, and the performance as automatic as may be. Those who can type without even thinking about it, and hardly ever lower their glance to the keys, are probably highly productive in these ways, as are those who are totally familiar with the pen. In this, not many would be as comfortable with one form as they are with the other, so the greatest fluidity will vary - the pen or the WP - per individual.

 

Comparison between the two may be a non-starter, because the computer's facility with rearrangement and editing has to be weighed against the greater requirement for planning when using pen and paper; different pros and cons.

 

The ability to edit freely is not necessarily an advantage! Many texts would seem to be the result of a process of protracted re-editing, where, really, re-writing was required. The pen may lend itself to rethinking from scratch more readily than will the WP, which seems (to me) to encourage tinkering with what is already there.

 

The difference that I notice for myself is in the area of planning the work; at the WP I'll likely blather it all down in the expectation of heavy editing later, but with the pen I am nearly always thinking of a bigger picture, with varying degrees of success!

 

In saying this, I guess I am making a general vote for the continuing value of handwriting in general as a valuable tool for use where suitable. The WP is likewise a valuable tool, where suitable.

Edited July 12, 2011 by beak

[Mickey]

  On 7/12/2011 at 10:32 AM, DAYoung said:

  On 7/12/2011 at 4:50 AM, Mickey said:

Which suggests two things to me. 1) Writing longhand more effectively exercises the brain. If, as some believe, keeping the brain stimulated confers some protection against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, writing longhand would likely provide superior prophylaxis. 2) Writing longhand, since it requires coordinated activities from more parts of the brain, may provide a superior engine for synthesis and resynthesis (of ideas).

 

This is an empirical question, so I'm hesitant to speculate too ambitiously.

Not so much speculation, as musing. Yes, the hypotheses would be difficult to test.

 

  On 7/12/2011 at 10:32 AM, DAYoung said:

But I'm fairly certain that writing a non-fiction book, for example, is more than enough to keep my brain stimulated. By pen or computer, the brain's working hard.

The brain isn't a muscle and their exercise is probably not all that comparable. Exercising a limited number of structures may do little for its overall health. Complexity of interconnections could be much more important than canalization. I'm inclined to believe the mode of expression is at least somewhat significant. Maybe dictating a thesis (in Japanese) on symbolic logic while tap-dancing is the ultimate brain exercise.

 

I know that for me, the task prejudices my choice of weapon. For example, I usually write dialog with an edged pen (potentially slowest), narrative with flexible nibs (dips, these days) (faster) and use either standard nibs or keyboard for roughing out ideas (fastest). Curious, but significant? Quien sabe.

 

  On 7/12/2011 at 10:32 AM, DAYoung said:

Whether longhand encourages the formation and transformation of ideas is another question. As I've remarked elsewhere, the pen does encourage a certain meditative focus. But it can also leave me more vague or waffly. What's common to both is an exploratory mood of sorts. This certainly backs up your idea, but I'd like to see research to back it up. (As would you, I'm guessing.)

I would. I'd be particularly interested in the test protocols.

[pajaro]

  On 5/14/2011 at 2:48 AM, beak said:

  On 5/14/2011 at 2:40 AM, KateGladstone said:

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 am in full agrement with Beak. How are these people writing if not in cursive? Printing? Shorthand? I can write much faster using cursive than printing. But a shorthand writer would be faster. It has been too many years since I used shorthand.

 

Reminds of what one of my late colleagues used to say: "There you go, thinking again!"

[Chevalier]

I have a problem with most studies favoring print. There's no way to tell if the people that took part are either good writers in cursive and print. My cursive has been a little slower after I used a semi joined print for a couple of years, but it didn't take long until it was faster again. I can't even let the "people need to type today argument" count. Everyone I know from school learned to type many years after they've learned to write cursive and print, and they learned typing much quicker than most schoolkids from today (that I know) too. This could be a coincidence, but it could be related as well. We needed to type, so we learned it, some learned to use their 10 fingers right away, others adopted their very own efficent hacking system.

 

I still think it's harder to acquire a decent skill in penmanship, but it doesn't need to consume much time in school, most is personal work. At least the basics should be taught in school. It might be unnececcary today, but that is true for most stuff we learn at school, because everybody goes in a different direction after school. What is the task of a school if not to give children the basics to develop in every possible way later? I can't imagine how hard it will be for anyone to start a life as an artist without the basics. In fact, most people wouldn't even get the idea to develop their skills and this might leave their true talent completely undiscovered.

[beak]

  On 7/12/2011 at 11:45 PM, Chevalier said:

............ Everyone I know from school learned to type many years after they've learned to write cursive and print, and they learned typing much quicker than most schoolkids from today (that I know) too. This could be a coincidence, but it could be related as well. ...........

I believe this is another important issue and one not given much attention yet. Instinctively, I agree with the idea, because, from my own experience, and those of all I have mentioned it to, skill with computers is greater in individuals who also have the relevant manual skill. Thus I believe that those who are facile with the pen (or pencil) will be faster and 'better' at writing in front of a computer than those who lack the traditional skill. This is undoubtedly true in the field of design and drawing, of which I have daily experience of comparing those with hand skill to those without.

 

Another argument for handwriting, though the best form will, likely, continue to be debated.

Edited July 13, 2011 by beak

[dasmart]

the fact one can't read is oen thing.. but excusing yourself because you can't is a different story. A good mind set is, "wow i cna't read this, let me research how to do it", people who research what they never knew have a positive intellectual outlook.

 

but when one says "what's that?" *SKIPS* or *forget it* then that is such a negative outlook.

 

i believe like how we use multi languages i'm a strong believer in being able to read more than just print. It is by far the most used font seeing as how 99.999% of our american books use some form of block print.

 

I think we can all agree writing is meant to be for communication, and we all choose our own way that best expresses our self to write. so i believe if you can read more hand writing styles you can communicate with more people.

 

 

i think the other point that was mad is true, because the text/email is our new form of communication majority of the time, all we really need to know is block print to communicate. Honestly if i could text in script i probably would, i think that'd be awesome to have font choices in basic phones(i dont have an iphone or anythnign fancy, idk if they even have fonts tho either).

 

 

I think cursive is seen as more intellectual or gives an air to be because those who know print might not know cursive, but those who can write/read cursive can definitely read/write print, so i think it's more that you just know more writing forms, n not whether it's harder or easier, tho i must say the potential for cursive to get complex is very huge as compared standard block print print, it can only get so fancy, from what i saw any ways.

[ocularhp]

I just figured I would add my whole perspective on the cursive writing coming from a younger generation. I was taught cursive sometime early in elementary school, I would say for about two years we were required to write everything in cursive - after that I begin recalling that teachers would EXPLICITLY ask that you write in print anything that you turned in - I heard this echoed by different people throughout high school and undergraduate and on various standardized tests. While some cursive handwriting I've seen is consistently easily legible (my sister has perhaps the most easily read cursive writing I have seen in my life), it seems cursive handwriting - especially when written quickly, can be difficult to read. I've always remembered thinking - why exactly am I learning cursive when they're telling us not to use it?

 

I'm almost positive on occasion I've exclaimed "I can't read cursive" when presented with notes written in it... and it's not that I'm incapable of reading it, I would just rather spend more time focusing on the content of the written material than deciphering that individual's writing. Maybe it's a consequence of the information age, I want to be able to read something quickly and be done with it.

[ocularhp]

  On 7/12/2011 at 11:45 PM, Chevalier said:

Everyone I know from school learned to type many years after they've learned to write cursive and print, and they learned typing much quicker than most schoolkids from today (that I know) too. This could be a coincidence, but it could be related as well.

 

I'm 24 now, I began taking computer typing classes in kindergarden - during the time they just began to focus on printed writing of letters. I don't believe we began cursive until late second grade... I can't really attest to how quickly I learned to type (as far back as I can remember it has seemed like second nature), but I do know that most people I've encountered that are 5 or more years older than me are often shocked at the speed that I am capable of typing and I would say my skills are only slightly above average for my age group. Honestly, I can type significantly faster than I can think. I do think having good handwriting is important (though I'm not favorable towards cursive), but I don't think my handwriting skills really had any impact on my ability to type.

[KateGladstone]

Leaving aside shorthand (which I wasn't considering) — The fastest non-cursive writers, in my observation and experience, are those who either use Italic or whose writing approximates Italic (even though they have usually not been taught this style and did not even know that it existed). Writers of such home-grown quasi-Italic — and writers of Italic itself — tend to be significantly faster than equally legible writers of cursive, and significantly more rapid than equally fast writers of cursive.

[kitsunec4]

  On 7/14/2011 at 12:44 AM, ocularhp said:

I'm almost positive on occasion I've exclaimed "I can't read cursive" when presented with notes written in it... and it's not that I'm incapable of reading it, I would just rather spend more time focusing on the content of the written material than deciphering that individual's writing. Maybe it's a consequence of the information age, I want to be able to read something quickly and be done with it.

 

Definitely have been the one offering said notes to a class, and getting the, uuuuh this is in cursive response back. Still, its really all about what someone is accustomed to, no big deal.

 

Except for truly atrocious handwriting, I used to dread English classes where we were forced to read one another's in-class essays. There were a couple of students with nigh-illegible handwriting. I don't know <i>what</i> it was.