Do Stubs And Italics Take The Individuality Out Of Handwriting?

[Blade Runner]

I don't have italics, but own some stubs and enjoy them for certain occasions. But in seeing examples written with stubs and italics, they often look quite similar. I think the line variation covers a lot of the quirks and individual characteristics that are more readily seen with regular round tips. Maybe for that reason, I wouldn't want all or most of my nibs to be stubs or italics. What's your impression?

 

[Ghost Plane]

I think you should send all your stubs and italics to me.

[pajaro]

I have more enjoyment out of stubs and italics than any other nibs. If italics give a nice look to your handwriting, it's not as if it puts your hand in some hard pattern by force, you can still write the same hand, but it helps you by imparting a little designed-in flair to your henscratching.

[colrehogan]

I think you should send all your stubs and italics to me.

I knew you'd respond this way!

[smk]

I suppose most of the work you see here is people learning formal, or near formal Italic. It is usually a good idea to learn the basics of the Italic hand before branching off to develop one's own style. Italic derived handwriting can be very much personalized, in fact more so than Palmer-style cursive.

 

Look at the all the variations on this page: http://www.italic-handwriting.org/exemplars - all of these are Italic based hands.

 

Broad-edged nibs are merely tools that introduce line variation in a stroke. Italic is one of many hands that utilizes this line variation to produce pleasing results. You can choose to write Italic with a monoline nib and it still looks like Italic. The edged nib doesn't force you into one style of writing, you are free to use the available line variation in any way you like.

 

The most remarkable example of handwriting with an edged nib I have seen was a cursive style and distinctly non-italic.It was the winner of one of Kate Gladstone's handwriting competitions in the Artistic Handwriting category some years ago. Unfortunately I can no longer find the image on her site.

 

Salman

[brunico]

Perhaps this is the case where people write with edged nibs simply to get line variation for its own sake, and what you're seeing may be because some people don't increase the size of their handwriting to accommodate a broader nib, so it smooths out all the quirks, closes up loops and circles and so on, resulting in a dense line in which words start to have the same shape. This becomes more pronounced, I think, where the edge is held parallel or perpendicular to the writing line, which can throw relative stroke weights off balance and give a 'heavy' look, producing an exaggerated line variation between vertical and horizontal strokes, where, in a classical italic hand, there's practically no line variation at all.

 

Where a hand is 'designed' to go with edged nibs - italic, gothic, whatever - the nib generally accentuates the form of each letter, and writers often exploit this accentuation in developing their own individual styles, as the examples and manuscript collections in our penmanship section show. The edge isn't there to be decorative - if I want decoration, I have glitter gel pens that will do a superior job - but to shape each letter in a particular, consistent and harmonious way.

 

 

The lowercase 'a's of Bodoni (left) and Helvetica (right) look very different from each other even though their skeletal shapes are practically the same, and line weight is a major part of this difference. But if I copied each with an italic nib - or a monoline nib, for that matter - they would lose their identities and start to resemble each other, because the weight of every part of each letter is integral to its design.

 

[Ha! Salman's link was the first one I thought of, but I wasn't sure it'd be enough to convince you! ]

Edited September 27, 2013 by brunico

[Blade Runner]

I may be mistaken, but I see italics and stubs as cousins to calligraphy nibs, and I always thought of calligraphy as a discipline to precisely and uniformly repeat lettering. Although not calligraphy nibs per se, I see the effect of italics and stubs as calligraphy like and unlike the marked non-uniformity of handwriting rendered with usual round tipped pens.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Blade Runner

[Columba Livia]

Italic derived handwriting can be very much personalized, in fact more so than Palmer-style cursive.

 

I find it hard to agree with that statement based on the evidence that I've seen. Many of the Italic handwriting manuals I've read, as far as their conception and knowledge of the history of handwriting goes, adhere to Johnstonian dogmas about how calligraphy and handwriting was on a permanent downward slope until Edward Johnston and Italic handwriting came along, but this was not the case at all: the 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden age of calligraphy and handwriting. That slanted perspective on the history of handwriting resulted in many extremely tenuous claims which dog Italic handwriting to this day. Amongst those tenuous claims I would number the claim that Italic handwriting can be more personalized than Palmer style cursive.

 

I think that the evidence we have today shows that Palmer-style cursive offers no less choice and potential for personalisation than Italic (possibly it could even offer more?).

 

Here is handwriting from 12 different people, showing some of the variety in handwriting that occurs with Palmer style cursive:

 

http://i.imgur.com/eypmyy0.jpg

 

This variety of capitals, in three distinct sets, is from just one book:

 

http://i.imgur.com/7gfJov9.jpg

 

And a selection from various sources showing some more of the variety possible with Palmer-style cursive:

 

http://i.imgur.com/BxGcYUn.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/FsGwFKy.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/kbYgctt.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/IDEYn4N.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/VF8wScC.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/ZoqI4Y2.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/8vBBhwv.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/aKidzct.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/kfkhWIb.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/0jHGGyH.jpg

 

None of this is to say that Italic is inferior to business writing/Palmer-style cursive, but I do think that there are claims made about Italic handwriting which overstate its merits and/or which are not congruent with available evidence.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Columba Livia

[Mickey]

One possible superior aspect of italic is pedagogic. As Spencer/Palmer-based systems initially emphasize stroke over architecture, they may not be as well suited as architecturally driven methods to students who still lack the dexterity to properly execute the strokes. As the architecture of the hand is embedded principally through physical repetition (rather than analysis), the potential for both aspects of the hand to be poorly learned is fairly high.

 

On the other hand, if, and this is the big if, the architecture of an italic hand is properly emphasized during instruction, a gradual improvement of penmanship seems more likely once the student's motor skills continue to improve generally.

 

Responding directly to the thread title: individuality is unavoidable, regardless of the shape of the pen's tip. Edged pens improperly wielded are capable penmanship every bit and tittle as unattractive as poorly used conventional pens, rigid or flexible.

[GRJP]

Hmmm...

Does real wheel drive take the fun out of driving?

 

I believe the italic nibs actually add to the individuality, at least in my case, because they allowed me to explore other ways of writing the same letter until it felt and looked right.

[ethernautrix]

My two cents: I have seen some handwriting that would have benefited from less width from a legibility standpoint. Or maybe the handwriting would have been more or less difficult to read.

 

</tangent>

[medicalcpa]

I may be mistaken, but I see italics and stubs as cousins to calligraphy nibs, and I always thought of calligraphy as a discipline to precisely and uniformly repeat lettering. Although not calligraphy nibs per se, I see the effect of italics and stubs as calligraphy like and unlike the marked non-uniformity of handwriting rendered with usual round tipped pens.

 

I very much disagree with this. Look at work from any two different calligraphers. Although they may be writing the same script, their work is never exactly the same. Even Foundational, which one would think admitted of no individuality, is not identical when written by two different people.

 

And since you asked for impressions, mine is if you don't like stub or italic nibs, don't use them. [First world] problem solved.

 

...But don't tar them (and the writing they produce) with the same brush.

[Blade Runner]

I do enjoy stubs. It's just that when i use one, it doesn't look like my hand. It looks more like a computer generated font.

[JonSzanto]

With a uniform-width nib tip, the only individual characteristic you can impart to a given character or set of characters is the precise path that you trace when drawing them. It stands to reason that a nib that has the ability to vary line width, either through a narrow/wide cut (italic/stub) or flexing can only *add* to the personal nature of the writing. Following the same precise path, one will get variation, and a nib that allows variation in the stroke seems very well suited to an expressive hand.

 

It certainly works that way for me, in my writing.

[TSherbs]

I am limited much more by the limits of my dexterity and pen control (I have always struggled with handwriting) than by the nib choice, but stubs (especially) actually help me gain a little regularity (and aesthetic reward for it), whereas my regular nibs just don't give me the same good feeling (aesthetically) for the way that my hand moves when I get it to relax and write.

[View from the Loft]

No, they most certainly don't.

 

My mother taught me to write, we both exclusively use italic or stub nibs, but our writing is not identical. Oh, and my writing has changed (improved I feel) over the last couple of years.

[smk]

Columba Livia, on 27 Sept 2013 - 09:14, said:

 

 

smk, on 26 Sept 2013 - 21:25, said:

Italic derived handwriting can be very much personalized, in fact more so than Palmer-style cursive.

I find it hard to agree with that statement based on the evidence that I've seen. Many of the Italic handwriting manuals I've read, as far as their conception and knowledge of the history of handwriting goes, adhere to Johnstonian dogmas about how calligraphy and handwriting was on a permanent downward slope until Edward Johnston and Italic handwriting came along, but this was not the case at all: the 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden age of calligraphy and handwriting. That slanted perspective on the history of handwriting resulted in many extremely tenuous claims which dog Italic handwriting to this day. Amongst those tenuous claims I would number the claim that Italic handwriting can be more personalized than Palmer style cursive.

 

I think that the evidence we have today shows that Palmer-style cursive offers no less choice and potential for personalisation than Italic (possibly it could even offer more?).

 

Palmer-style cursive is designed around a system of writing, not just letter forms. In fact, the letter forms appear to be subservient to efficiency in Palmer style of writing. Once you start personalizing the 'system' you are no longer writing Palmer. It could still be Palmer derived but the structure breaks down quicker in that style of writing compared to Italic which retains its Italic-ness better.

 

This remains my opinion and I have now given you the basis for it. I can appreciate a contrary viewpoint and don't think you should, or expect you to, change your viewpoint.

 

However, for you to assign a basis to my opinion and suggest that my 'tenuous claim' is influenced by Edward Johnston's theories is just plain wrong and rather un-cool.

 

I don't know if it makes any difference (or even if it should) but my own handwriting is firmly in cursive camp that can be called Palmer-derived, although I had not even heard of Palmer when learning to write and develop my handwriting.

 

S.

[akustyk]

As you can see, this topic has generated some passionate responses, which is to be expected, even from the title of the thread, alone . All joking aside, a lot of people, at least here on FPN, believe that stubs actually add character and personality to one's otherwise common and plain penmanship. So, in a sense, the prevalent opinion regarding stubs and "individuality" is opposite to what you claim.

 

However, I think I understand what you're talking about. Stubs do give handwriting a certain unique character, easily recognizable for anyone who subscribes to this forum. Perhaps it is that aspect of stub handwriting that makes you think of stubs as being void of individuality. If you can always tell somebody is writing with a stub, then it must be too "cookie cutter," right?

 

My opinion is that, regardless of the type of writing instrument, individuality is always present, in everybody's handwriting. True, if you want to do critical calligraphy and try to achieve the ultimate precision of a formal hand, then, yes, you are striving towards a model and, in a sense, everybody's handwriting is going to be similar, uniform, perhaps even lacking personality. But that is true of any kind of instrument; it is the hand that matters, not the instrument.

 

As many people here have shown, writing with a stub/italic can be extremely creative and artistic, and fully of individuality. In fact, individuality is at the very heart of this whole penmanship thing and fountain pen hobby.

[Columba Livia]

Once you start personalizing the 'system' you are no longer writing Palmer.

 

I'd like to clarify that "Palmer style writing" wasn't invented by Austin Norman Palmer. He was one of the most successful exponents of it so his name became attached to the general style. People at the time called it "business writing" and I will refer to it as that now.

 

Now, I don't understand how differing in some way from Palmer's instructions and forms, or anyone else's, suddenly means you're no longer doing Business writing. The examples I showed are all clearly recognizable as Business writing and/or as derived from it just as the Italic examples you linked to are all clearly recognizable as italic: all handwriting styles involve a system of movement even if it is not explicitly stated so. Also, different people may use different movements to make writing that looks similar in style, so if it looks like a duck...

 

the structure breaks down quicker in that style of writing compared to Italic which retains its Italic-ness better.

 

Can you clarify what you mean by "structure breaks down quicker compared to Italic" and "Italic-ness"?

 

However, for you to assign a basis to my opinion and suggest that my 'tenuous claim' is influenced by Edward Johnston's theories is just plain wrong and rather un-cool.

 

I don't know if your opinion was directly influenced by the theories of Johnston and his students, but Italic handwriting and its proponents certainly were and are. Modern Italic handwriting originated with Graily Hewitt (a pupil of Edward Johnston) and Alfred Fairbank who was in turn a pupil of Graily Hewitt. They and other people who took up the cudgel for Italic handwriting made various claims about handwriting, such as other styles falling apart at speed but Italic not doing so, Round-hand being invented by engravers, pointed pens being responsible for a decline in the quality of handwriting and other styles being impersonal but Italic personal, which are hard to find evidence to support. These claims have been repeated in various Italic handwriting manuals to this day, and from there have passed over into other literature too.

 

I don't think, for a second, that you are hostile towards other styles of handwriting, but professional promoters of Italic handwriting have often been so: Getty and Dubay had, 2 years ago, an article in The Oregonian newspaper where they rejoiced over the fact that cursive was no longer being taught in many schools in America! All of this makes it important, I believe, to look carefully at claims made on behalf of Italic handwriting.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Columba Livia

[smk]

Columba Livia - I am not a proponent of Italic handwriting.

 

In fact I deeply dislike the idea of being a proponent of any style over another. I do not support Getty or Dubay in their stance against cursive either.

 

Just because I hold a positive opinion about certain aspects of Italic does not mean that I can be lumped together with EJ and his disciples. This is what I took an exception to.

 

As I mentioned before, my own handwriting is cursive and I can write much much faster in this style than in an Italic style. So, for speed, I hold a higher opinion of cursive business-like hand over Italic. This does not mean that others have to agree with me - or call me anti-Johnston.

 

The merits of Italic vs. Cursive (Business, Palmer) have been discussed here many times, to start the discussion again in this thread would only steer it away from the original poster's question. Let's leave it for some other time.

 

Salman