"rhythm" - Can Someone Explain This To Me?

[VillersCotterets]

Many of your letters are not fully formed CURSIVE letters. They are more like print/stick letters. You draw them sometime in two stokes, sometime in one continuous movement, sometime starting at the top, sometime in the middle and sometime on the baseline.

 

For instance, your letters "f, c, s, t, " should start and end on the baseline, instead of having a floating start and a variable ending.

 

Look at the following letters and notice how they (almost) all start and end with the same linking curve :

 

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/336/testak.png

 

For instance, the ending of the letter "q" is the beginning of "r"... or any other letter of the alphabet.

 

You are not learning Spencerian script, but also notice that all letters can be formed with only a few (7) basics stokes:

http://www.iampeth.com/lessons/spencerian/new_standard/spencer_new_standard_image0.jpg

 

You tend to not draw stokes #2, #3 & #4

 

 

Same start and same ending (thin line) in all the following letters :

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6736/testszv.jpg

What distinguish one letter from the other are their internal strokes, not their intro and extro.

Edited June 28, 2012 by VillersCotterets

[VillersCotterets]

Another way to explain it :

 

The same few basic strokes are combined to create all the letter. This repetition creates consistent, harmonious letters. Executing the same careful movements, over and over, creates a rhythm.

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:58 AM, VillersCotterets said:

 

You tend to not draw stokes #2, #3 & #4

 

 

Here is the crux of what you don't seem to understand. Handwriting is not drawn. It is written, a different, much more rhythmic activity.

 

The strokes need to be embedded as muscular memory. There is insufficient time (at handwriting speed) for the sort of moment by moment control employed in drawing. One does not learn to hand-write by simply tracing the desired stroke or figure, though that may be an early part of the process, but rather through an iterative process of failure, self-critique, and correction, creating the stroke or letter as a whole, a gestalt: written, not drawn. Both proper form at speed and rhythm are the inevitable results of such a process.

 

Don't just look at the pretty charts. Read the manuals. Notice that the Spencers suggest 30-40 per minute are easily possible with their method. Drawing letter won't get one there. One needs to understand that simple fact to understand the manner in which the exercises must be approached. One needs to get away from the notion of drawing figures (principles) as soon as possible.

 

A general note about exercises: Most exercises have a characteristic or intended speed, tempo if you will. If performed substantially faster or slower, they will be ineffective, counterproductive, or destructive. This applies equally to what one does in the scriptorium as it does in the gymnasium.

[pmhudepo]

Thanks to this thread I have a better understanding of the reasons why my writing falls apart when I speed up. Old habits creep in and I have my hand planted firmly on the desk, limiting myself to a jerky vertical movement and limited horizontal movement, each roughly at constant speed throughout a word. Go, go, go, move hand for next word, go, go, go, move ... My writing becomes compressed, the rounded arches of the letters h, m, n become sharp, pointed; c and e morph into one form, etc. I guess if I'd just produce the vertical movement and someone would drag the paper horizontally for me, we'd produce a spiky sine wave :-)

 

In order to produce beautiful letters, I need to slow down on the curves and loops, much like slowing down a car before a corner if you don't want to spin out. Or, as is perhaps more appropriate in this case, if you don't want to cut the corner.

 

In EC Mills' Modern Business Penmanship, especially the exercies for o, i, u, m and n (plates 10 - 16) seems useful in discovering rhythm. I try to 'swing' between letters in words like m-o-o-n, u-n-i-o-n, n-i-n-e. I still have a lot of work to do, because I often find myself saying "round at the top, sharp at the blue line" or whatever instruction is needed for a particular letter. Perhaps I haven't moved beyond the drawing stage yet.

Edited June 28, 2012 by pmhudepo

[VillersCotterets]

  On 6/28/2012 at 4:57 AM, Mickey said:

Here is the crux of what you don't seem to understand. Handwriting is not drawn. It is written, a different, much more rhythmic activity.

 

Traced, drawn, written.... whatever word suits you. You keep telling we don't mean the same thing, but totally ignored the part where I've told you I often don't use the same exact words as you because English is not my first language.

 

And you still haven't understood that I cannot product videos to answer each posts and show the hand movements. Instead, I display "pretty charts" of end results to attract the attention to particular aspects of writing. Once again you simply ignore the fact not all people learn the same way. You understand things as a kinetic/auditory learner. Other people are visual learners. A chart tells them 1000% more than any musical analogies. They will find the right "tempo, melody or rhythm" if they know what the end result should LOOK like. Both learning types end up learning the same thing but by taking different routes.

Edited June 28, 2012 by VillersCotterets

[VillersCotterets]

  On 6/28/2012 at 8:07 AM, pmhudepo said:

In order to produce beautiful letters, I need to slow down on the curves and loops, much like slowing down a car before a corner if you don't want to spin out. Or, as is perhaps more appropriate in this case, if you don't want to cut the corner.

 

You got it. If you go too fast, instead of harmonious letters, you will start to produce ragged letters as if it was drawn by a seismograph.

 

http://www.teachersdomain.org/assets/wgbh/ess05/ess05_vid_seismograph/ess05_vid_seismograph_l.jpg

 

The same thing happen when people focus too much on slant. They tend to make only diagonal, up and down motions; neglecting to take all turns.

 

Also people who don't use their whole arm, instead write by only flexing their fingers, tend also to write like a seismograph.

Edited June 28, 2012 by VillersCotterets

[patrickfp]

  On 6/28/2012 at 12:50 AM, Zipzap said:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7758/img1571r.jpg

 

At least let me offer some words of encouragement. Having seen your handwriting over a period of time now, even if it's a short period, I can see some progress. Your handwriting is not very good yet. I don't like to sugarcoat a problem. If somebody does not tell me I am wrong, I will think I am right.

 

I say progress because I feel your handwriting is better spaced now and way more legible and pleasant to read that it was before. Keep in mind that I am not an expert, but that does mean that I cannot recognize decent handwriting.

[patrickfp]

Zipzap:

 

Don't forget to enjoy and have fun in what you are doing. From time to time, take a step back and see where the problems are.

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 12:31 PM, VillersCotterets said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 4:57 AM, Mickey said:

Here is the crux of what you don't seem to understand. Handwriting is not drawn. It is written, a different, much more rhythmic activity.

 

Traced, drawn, written.... whatever word suits you. You keep telling we don't mean the same thing, but totally ignored the part where I've told you I often don't use the same exact words as you because English is not my first language.

 

 

Your English is surely better than my French. Still, my French was good enough for me to determine that dessiner does not mean ecrire. Regardless, there are plenty of online dictionaries to help you. English, for good or ill, is the default language of the board and the words write and draw have very distinct meanings in English, and that distinction is central to the meaning of this thread.

 

On the other hand, rhythm is close enough to rythme, that the thrust of this thread should have been obvious: manquer de rythme. You have not yet added anything remotely related to that topic, rythme, as it applies either de temps or d'espace . You have instead offered your expert opinion on some other subject. This suggests that regardless of the language, you either did not understand the thrust of the thread or had nothing truly relevant to add.

[VillersCotterets]

  On 6/28/2012 at 1:35 PM, Mickey said:

Your English is surely better than my French. Still, my French was good enough for me to determine that dessiner does not mean ecrire.

 

Actually, in French, I would not say dessiner nor écrire but tracer and I would say qu'il faut veiller au tracé complet des lettres, sans omettre les déliés, ni se précipiter. Il faut des gestes amples au lieu de tracer les lettres du bout des doigts. But Google Translate outputs this nonsensical sentence : "We must ensure the complete shape of letters, without omitting hairlines or rushing. Further actions are needed instead of drawing the letters with your fingertips." The two most important concepts, tracé and déliés, are lost in the translation.

 

Zip Zap : Do you write with your fingers or with all your arm?

Edited June 28, 2012 by VillersCotterets

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 2:39 PM, VillersCotterets said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 1:35 PM, Mickey said:

Your English is surely better than my French. Still, my French was good enough for me to determine that dessiner does not mean ecrire.

 

Actually, in French, I would not say dessiner nor écrire but tracer and I would say qu'il faut veiller au tracé complet des lettres, sans omettre les déliés, ni se précipiter. Il faut des gestes amples au lieu de tracer les lettres du bout des doigts. But Google Translate outputs this nonsensical sentence : "We must ensure the complete shape of letters, without omitting hairlines or rushing. Further actions are needed instead of drawing the letters with your fingertips." The two most important concepts, tracé and déliés, are lost in the translation.

 

 

Fine, tracer then, but it does not by itself convey the necessary distinction between drawn and written, as the terms apply to handwriting.

 

And still you give short shrift to the principle thrust of this thread, rhythm, other than (finally) conceding that Zipzap should not rush.

[patrickfp]

Mickey and VillersCotterets:

 

You guys should take a break. You can agree to disagree, otherwise, the pendantic debate is not helping Zipzap. Why does not each of you offer his opinion and advice and let Zipzap decide? If he/she finds he/she needs clarification, he/she can ask for more details.

 

I am fully bilingual and having work on quite a few translation, I can say that it's very rare that the translation of a concept from one language to the other is 100% faithful. Try translating "quality time" in French and you'll get the idea. The meaning of a word is in us not in the work. The same English word for example can be understood differently in Australian, British, Canadian and American English. How we understand a word depends heavily on our experience and the culture in which we grew up.

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 8:07 AM, pmhudepo said:

Thanks to this thread I have a better understanding of the reasons why my writing falls apart when I speed up. Old habits creep in and I have my hand planted firmly on the desk, limiting myself to a jerky vertical movement and limited horizontal movement, each roughly at constant speed throughout a word. Go, go, go, move hand for next word, go, go, go, move ... My writing becomes compressed, the rounded arches of the letters h, m, n become sharp, pointed; c and e morph into one form, etc. I guess if I'd just produce the vertical movement and someone would drag the paper horizontally for me, we'd produce a spiky sine wave :-)

 

In order to produce beautiful letters, I need to slow down on the curves and loops, much like slowing down a car before a corner if you don't want to spin out. Or, as is perhaps more appropriate in this case, if you don't want to cut the corner.

 

In EC Mills' Modern Business Penmanship, especially the exercies for o, i, u, m and n (plates 10 - 16) seems useful in discovering rhythm. I try to 'swing' between letters in words like m-o-o-n, u-n-i-o-n, n-i-n-e. I still have a lot of work to do, because I often find myself saying "round at the top, sharp at the blue line" or whatever instruction is needed for a particular letter. Perhaps I haven't moved beyond the drawing stage yet.

 

Excellent. Right on point. I also seem to remember Lloyd Reynold emphasized in his video classes the value of concentrating on rhythm when practicing.

 

I liked the suggestion in one of the Spencer method book to vocalize (or sub-vocalize) the numbers for principles as one learns them. I found that as I practiced, my pronunciation of the numbers gradually altered from default speech values to altered forms which conveyed the timing of the stroke (I even pitch inflected them slightly). For example, 5 became faaaivuh? (a long stretch for the swell, a gently voiced v for the bottom turning, a soft release with rising inflection to perform the upstroke). Similarly, 7 became seeeVn, a gentle down stroke (seee), a press for the swell (V), and then a quick release (n). And so on. After a while, the vocalization became unnecessary, as the embedded rhythms persisted on their own. Now, all I need to do to clean up my handwriting when it becomes spiky is to slow down till I start hearing the rhythms again.

 

Perhaps one of the other participants in this thread might read your post.

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 3:32 PM, patrickfp said:

Mickey and VillersCotterets:

 

You guys should take a break. You can agree to disagree, otherwise, the pendantic debate is not helping Zipzap. Why does not each of you offer his opinion and advice and let Zipzap decide? If he/she finds he/she needs clarification, he/she can ask for more details.

 

 

Zipzap shotgunned the penmanship forum with a broad range questions, each regarding one or more aspects of his handwriting problems. This one regarded rhythm, as the topic heading and original post made clear. It's no more complicated than that: thread hijacking.

 

Agreed, the question of translation went off course. The excuse of 'lost in translation' was a pretty transparent excuse for not having taken the structural discussion either back channel or to the appropriate thread. I should have ignored it. Mea culpa X 3. It must be the terrier in my blood lines.

 

For the record, though hardly mono-lingual anymore, in my performing days, I routinely worked in 4 languages (other than English), ultimately singing in 17 (though some infrequently enough to not really count) before the end of my career. It do appreciate the problems of translation, particularly of faux amis.

 

Whoops! Wrong thread.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Mickey

[patrickfp]

  On 6/28/2012 at 4:14 PM, Mickey said:

 

Zipzap shotgunned the penmanship forum with a broad range questions, each regarding one or more aspects of his handwriting problems. This one regarded rhythm, as the topic heading and original post made clear. It's no more complicated than that: thread hijacking.

 

Agreed, the question of translation went off course. The excuse of 'lost in translation' was a pretty transparent excuse for not having taken the structural discussion either back channel or to the appropriate thread. I should have ignored it. Mea culpa X 3. It must be the terrier in my blood lines.

 

For the record, though hardly mono-lingual anymore, in my performing days, I routinely worked in 4 languages (other than English), ultimately singing in 17 (though some infrequently enough to not really count) before the end of my career. It do appreciate the problems of translation, particularly of faux amis.

 

Whoops! Wrong thread.

I was glad to be able to apply what I learned in my Peace and Conflict Studies. Okay back to the topic!

[Mickey]

  On 6/28/2012 at 4:51 PM, patrickfp said:

 

I was glad to be able to apply what I learned in my Peace and Conflict Studies. Okay back to the topic!

 

Nothing much else to say. As the folks on X-files used to say, "The Truth is Out There."

[Zipzap]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8295/img1614v.jpg

[Mickey]

  On 6/29/2012 at 5:33 AM, Zipzap said:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8295/img1614v.jpg

 

Nah. No criticism intended. All I was doing was pointing out that you had asked several question, each one fairly well defined as to scope and topic.

[patrickfp]

Zipzap, if you want to learn italic handwriting, may I suggest (like some Ann Finley and Lloyd Reynolds suggested) that you use a large pen? You'll be able to better spot the problems. I used to practise with a Lamy Safari 1.1 mm and a Richard Binder 0.7 mm. The Lamy writes a thinner than 1.1 mm line. I tried the 1.5 mm nib today, and I noticed a huge difference right away.

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b77/pngpingching/Blog/1407_001.jpg

[Mickey]

  On 6/29/2012 at 3:00 PM, patrickfp said:

Zipzap, if you want to learn italic handwriting, may I suggest (like some Ann Finley and Lloyd Reynolds suggested) that you use a large pen? You'll be able to better spot the problems. I used to practise with a Lamy Safari 1.1 mm and a Richard Binder 0.7 mm. The Lamy writes a thinner than 1.1 mm line. I tried the 1.5 mm nib today, and I noticed a huge difference right away.

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b77/pngpingching/Blog/1407_001.jpg

 

Excellent advice. The same thing I advised back channel.