Similarities Between Looped Cursive And Cursive Italic

[bokchoy]

http://i.imgur.com/G3wtqXB.jpg

 

Substitute a few simpler letter forms, drop the (optional) lead-in/exit strokes and the differences become pretty murky. Is the bottom left a personalized hand developed from looped cursive or a personalized cursive italic that is more joined and slanted than average? I can think of any number of examples including sloppily-written cursive italic with accidental loops.

 

http://i.imgur.com/Soz52po.jpg

 

 

Musings:

 

I see a lot of people advocating italic over looped cursive but don't really believe one is more difficult than the other. I have yet to see somebody recommend resources for italic that don't include thorough instructions, whereas I rarely see the same depth of information for looped cursive. When people make wild claims about how italic made their handwriting so much better, I wonder if it's because italic resources often emphasize the flow and rhythm of good handwriting, not because of the style itself.

 

As well, many people who learnt looped cursive in school seem to be under the impression that cursive exemplars should be followed exactly or that every letter must be joined. I suspect this was great for learning how to join in the beginning, but after teachers repeated and enforced it too strongly, it became institutionalized. I'm sure most people would be willing to call this (looped) cursive despite the number of pen lifts.

Edited July 8, 2015 by bokchoy

[AAAndrew]

I am an advocate for people finding what works best for them. If some of your letters don't connect, it's not the end of the world. It really comes down to consistency, spacing, proportion and clarity. Even consistency can sometimes be bent (but not fully broken) and still be very readable. I've been studying the writing in the Declaration of Independence. It's a beautiful scribes Roundhand and very readable. But if you look closely, it's not written like a computer. There are inconsistencies in how they make certain letters from one word or part of the document to another. But it's all proportioned and clear.

 

It's an interesting point you make about looped cursive. I would think there would be a ton of information out there just from our old penmanship books from not that long ago. And I suspect if you looked for instruction in Palmer method you'd find some stuff, but the emphasis these days seems to be shifting away from what "everyone learned" to some of the older or more exotic styles. (Engrosser's, I'm looking at you!) These are beautiful scripts but not terribly useful for daily writing.

 

So, I'm still left wondering just what the point was you were trying to make. Are you encouraging people to find something in between looped and italic cursive, or are you pointing out that one need not be dogmatic about one or the other? I would agree with the latter point as long as they don't ask "Lary Bard" for advice.

[mstone]

I think italic makes handwriting better because it's simpler and degrades more gracefully. To write looped cursive well requires a lot of up-front effort (palmer, for example, prescribed long repetitive drills involving ovals and lines) as well as ongoing practice. Most people these days just don't spend enough time writing to gain or maintain proficiency in the style.

[akustyk]

I agree with AAAndrew completely. Looped cursive has, historically, been based on the fundamental idea of repetitive drilling, hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of work.

 

Italic, be it formal or cursive, also requires a lot of work to achieve a level of proficiency that results in beautiful, effortless writing. The difference between formal italic and cursive italic is sometimes, but not always, thought of as that of calligraphy versus handwriting. Formal italic (and related styles) are done slowly, deliberately, more like drawing than handwriting. Cursive italic is typically written at speed and more casually, but by no means sloppily.

 

To sum up, both styles require as much hard work and dedication. There are no short cuts. Period.

[brunico]

Is the bottom left a personalized hand developed from looped cursive or a personalized cursive italic that is more joined and slanted than average?s

 

A personalised hand developed from looped cursive, similar to a lot of people's handwriting these days, though your bottom-right "special delivery" is closer to italic. Outside the US, and I presume Canada too, cursive just means joined-up, or even - for some people - grown-up writing, not necessarily written in a continuous line. Your French link is a good example of this. Italic can be as joined-up as you want: there are no rules, but joining where it feels natural, not joining where it takes more effort or gives an awkward result, and doing so consistently, is the best way to go.

 

Italic letterforms are also close to modern typefaces, and it's not surprising that a lot of handwriting that eschews ornamentation looks similar at first blush. Unlike Spencerian, which began as a commercial exemplar for people to copy, there's no single, authoritative, textbook italic style to look back to, so the personalisation crept in half a millennium ago.

 

When people make wild claims about how italic made their handwriting so much better, I wonder if it's because italic resources often emphasize the flow and rhythm of good handwriting, not because of the style itself.

 

I think a lot of this is because people are always saying an italic nib adds "flair" - or more usually, "flare" - to their handwriting. Yes, it looks groovy, but it transforms the shape of letters, and if the shapes aren't great to begin with, or the angle of the nib inappropriate, it doesn't transform them in a good way. The same goes for flex.

 

Italic is elegant for being, at base, a simple and vigorous style. This is obviously quite different from Spencerian and similar hands, which would be invisible without ornamentation and embellishment. Both styles can be beautiful, but don't mistake ornament for beauty. Also, take the Spencerian "r." It looks nothing like any "r" you'd see in print. If not executed particularly well or legibly in Spencerian, there may well be an improvement if the writer can do the clearer and simpler form in italic, or any other style which is closer to print.

 

Flow and rhythm are important to any hand, and they can be part of what makes something beautiful. There are people who write a perfectly good print hand, or some other style of their own, but then start writing italic or Spencerian and thinking it looks better because it's "fancy," when in fact it just looks awkward or ill-proportioned, and their original hand is miles better. I think that if one merely tries to ape what one sees rather than understanding what's behind it, it will look shoddy, whatever the style (and I think this also holds true for drawing or playing the piano). Beauty really is more than skin-deep.

[bokchoy]

So, I'm still left wondering just what the point was you were trying to make. Are you encouraging people to find something in between looped and italic cursive, or are you pointing out that one need not be dogmatic about one or the other?

The latter

 

I think italic makes handwriting better because it's simpler and degrades more gracefully. To write looped cursive well requires a lot of up-front effort (palmer, for example, prescribed long repetitive drills involving ovals and lines) as well as ongoing practice. Most people these days just don't spend enough time writing to gain or maintain proficiency in the style.

 

Historical baggage is a problem haha. One could also argue that repetitive drilling benefits cursive italic, or that the methods used to teach cursive italic also benefit looped cursive.

 

Honestly, I think my problem is that I just don't see a huge difference between the two. If I lower the join angle in italic so that a loop forms above x-height, I get looped cursive. The loops are essentially extended joins. An example borrowed from Briem.net:

 

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

[mstone]

 

Historical baggage is a problem haha. One could also argue that repetitive drilling benefits cursive italic, or that the methods used to teach cursive italic also benefit looped cursive.

 

Honestly, I think my problem is that I just don't see a huge difference between the two. If I lower the join angle in italic so that a loop forms above x-height, I get looped cursive. The loops are essentially extended joins

 

What you're missing is that a readable looped hand requires very consistent and precise loops. That is why there were drills--you had to be able to create consistent loops, and you got there by practice. Similar drills can still help, but they aren't as necessary with a simpler style if you want something that's readable as opposed to something that's beautiful. OF COURSE there are some similarities, and you can transform italic letters into looped forms--the looped forms derive from classical italic. But just sloppily looping results in something that is very hard to read, and doing it neatly requires more practice than most people are willing to put into handwriting these days.

[akustyk]

 

What you're missing is that a readable looped hand requires very consistent and precise loops. That is why there were drills--you had to be able to create consistent loops, and you got there by practice. Similar drills can still help, but they aren't as necessary with a simpler style if you want something that's readable as opposed to something that's beautiful. OF COURSE there are some similarities, and you can transform italic letters into looped forms--the looped forms derive from classical italic. But just sloppily looping results in something that is very hard to read, and doing it neatly requires more practice than most people are willing to put into handwriting these days.

 

Yes, precisely. The similarities are, of course, there. Basic letterforms are very similar, but usually consist of different strokes, for some letters, at least.

 

One important difference between cursive italic and business penmanship (commonly referred to, at least in the US, as simply "cursive" or "Palmer Method") is typically written at the slope of 55 degrees. Cursive italic is more like 5 or 10 degrees, so that's a huge difference. The slope influences the shape of letterforms beyond just loops. This is one of the reasons why young people have a hard time reading sloped cursive.

 

Another big difference is how you hold the pen. In (cursive) italic, you typically hold the nib at the 45-degree angle to the paper, at least with italic nibs you do. Business penmanship requires that you hold the nib at as close to 0 degrees as possible. This is particularly important if you are going to flex the nib, as in Spencerian handwriting.

 

Finally, in cursive italic, there is no "formal" recommendation that I know of that would have you write with your hand off the paper, while in business penmanship, it is recommended that you keep the hand off the paper, just very gently "skating" with your fingernails. You tend to write more with your arm, than your fingers or hand. In italic the 45-degree angle is crucial to obtaining the line variation that makes it look so beautiful. There is no such line variation in business penmanship.

[bokchoy]

Another big difference is how you hold the pen. In (cursive) italic, you typically hold the nib at the 45-degree angle to the paper, at least with italic nibs you do. Business penmanship requires that you hold the nib at as close to 0 degrees as possible.

 

Finally, in cursive italic, there is no "formal" recommendation that I know of that would have you write with your hand off the paper, while in business penmanship, it is recommended that you keep the hand off the paper, just very gently "skating" with your fingernails. You tend to write more with your arm, than your fingers or hand. In italic the 45-degree angle is crucial to obtaining the line variation that makes it look so beautiful. There is no such line variation in business penmanship.

 

If we take "looped cursive" to mean strict American business penmanship, I'd agree. The typical North American under 30 (and possibly older) isn't taught hold a pen that way and has no exposure to Palmer-esque drills. I certainly didn't until I found this forum. Look at the Lamy Safari, one of many German school pens with that triangular grip, then look at the recommended grip in those business penmanship books. They're incompatible yet many Germans still learnt a looped cursive variant by holding the nib at a 45 degree angle to the paper. If we avoid flexible and italic nibs, nib angle isn't a requirement of either italic or looped cursive.

 

Furthermore, I'm under the impression that arm-writing improves consistency and lets you write much longer before lifting the pen or repositioning the paper. However, if we agree that this French example is looped cursive, someone could theoretically write this way using finger movement.

 

What you're missing is that a readable looped hand requires very consistent and precise loops. That is why there were drills--you had to be able to create consistent loops, and you got there by practice. Similar drills can still help, but they aren't as necessary with a simpler style if you want something that's readable as opposed to something that's beautiful. OF COURSE there are some similarities, and you can transform italic letters into looped forms--the looped forms derive from classical italic. But just sloppily looping results in something that is very hard to read, and doing it neatly requires more practice than most people are willing to put into handwriting these days.

 

I'll have to disagree. Firstly, loops are functional joins and not merely for beauty unless you're writing Copperplate. Of course consistency is a factor in neatness but sloppy joins will make any style hard to read. Italic has its own challenges including writing that is too angular (perhaps some oval drills would help?).

 

Secondly, aside from picky teachers, there's no reason why somebody couldn't de-loop the ascenders or use more pen lifts. Look at these [british fonts for children](http://www.cursivewriting.org/joined-cursive-fonts.html) or Ken Fraser's more calligraphic example here.

 

Loving the debate, by the way.

[akustyk]

bokchoy, if course you are right about cursive and its connotations. I grew up learning the German-style cursive, but it seems to be that at FPN the American cursive is the most prevalent. Sorry about the oversimplification.

 

With regards to loops, we could always drop them. Perhaps it makes the writing more legible? I am not sure.

Edited July 9, 2015 by akustyk

[Randal6393]

Jumping into the deep end, would say that most people who feel cursive is "just like" italic aren't all that familiar with either looped cursive or italic. Yes, there are some similarities. But, as one who writes American Cursive, Italic, and Copperplate, feel that each hand has a rhythm and ductus all its own. All are equally readable, equally acceptable.

 

For my tastes, Italic is a much faster, easily-written and read hand. But that is just my preference. Also feel that the reason most writers do so poorly with American Cursive hands is due to the poor quality of the teaching in schools. That was true 'way back in the 1950's when I was a youngster. Only gotten worse since then. So, yes, bokchoy, teaching is much poorer with cursive hands than italic hands. Mostly because very few people take the time to find good books on writing cursive.

 

The reason so much drill was involved with business hands was due to the speed and legibility required to write Business Cursive well. Perhaps as much drill is needed to write Italic well, but I don't find it a chore. My original handwriting teacher definitely made American Cursive a chore.

 

Enjoy,

[cellmatrix]

Jumping into the deep end, would say that most people who feel cursive is "just like" italic aren't all that familiar with either looped cursive or italic. Yes, there are some similarities. But, as one who writes American Cursive, Italic, and Copperplate, feel that each hand has a rhythm and ductus all its own. All are equally readable, equally acceptable.

 

For my tastes, Italic is a much faster, easily-written and read hand. But that is just my preference. Also feel that the reason most writers do so poorly with American Cursive hands is due to the poor quality of the teaching in schools. That was true 'way back in the 1950's when I was a youngster. Only gotten worse since then. So, yes, bokchoy, teaching is much poorer with cursive hands than italic hands. Mostly because very few people take the time to find good books on writing cursive.

 

The reason so much drill was involved with business hands was due to the speed and legibility required to write Business Cursive well. Perhaps as much drill is needed to write Italic well, but I don't find it a chore. My original handwriting teacher definitely made American Cursive a chore.

 

Enjoy,

After having used cursive italic as my main hand for years, I recently taught myself business cursive and am enjoying it. Maybe its because I wanted to learn it, rather than having a teacher forcing it on me??

 

Maybe also its because that instead of the Palmer method, I learned from the book "modern business penmanship" by EC Mills and I think its one of the best business cursive manuals out there.

 

I do agree with you italic is much more readable, but there's something very attractive about a nicely rendered business cursive that I am appreciating more and more. And I am finding as I gain more skill with it, business cursive can be produced pretty rapidly.

[Randal6393]

Modern Business Penmanship by E. C. Mills is an excellent manual. And, learned at one's own speed, the learning is much nicer. Besides, one doesn't have a teacher criticizing one's writing as it is written. My handwriting teacher was a real bear. Insisted all letters in a word be written at one go, without lifting the pen from the paper. No matter how long the word is.

 

So enjoy your cursive, it certainly has its place in writing. For me, I much prefer italic and copperplate. But, again, that's my taste.

 

Enjoy,

[nickmazur]

Modern Business Penmanship by E. C. Mills is an excellent manual. And, learned at one's own speed, the learning is much nicer. Besides, one doesn't have a teacher criticizing one's writing as it is written. My handwriting teacher was a real bear. Insisted all letters in a word be written at one go, without lifting the pen from the paper. No matter how long the word is.

 

So enjoy your cursive, it certainly has its place in writing. For me, I much prefer italic and copperplate. But, again, that's my taste.

 

Enjoy,

I just downloaded it. I am really impressed. I kind of hear about it before on FPN but never really took the time to look it up properly. Awesome stuff. Thanks for the advice.

Nick

[cellmatrix]

Modern Business Penmanship by E. C. Mills is an excellent manual. And, learned at one's own speed, the learning is much nicer. Besides, one doesn't have a teacher criticizing one's writing as it is written. My handwriting teacher was a real bear. Insisted all letters in a word be written at one go, without lifting the pen from the paper. No matter how long the word is.

 

So enjoy your cursive, it certainly has its place in writing. For me, I much prefer italic and copperplate. But, again, that's my taste.

 

Enjoy,

Randal, I really have enjoyed your contributions to the forum, and in an effort to share back, I'll just suggest if you ever want to revisit business cursive and have not done so already I suggest using the EC Mills book. The lettering is really stellar.

 

Like you, I still enjoy italic, and like writing letters in chancery cursive. I have a used copy of "an italic copybook: the Cataneo Manuscript" by Stephen Harvard, which I treasure. I do aspire towards emulating Cateneo's elegant script, but achieving perfection is certainly challenging, ha ha. One thing I've noticed is that a finer italic point, like around 0.7 or 0.6 works better for Cateneo's script, at least for me.

 

I find business cursive is a nice diversion (for me I like taking notes with it) which does not diminish my appreciation for italic in the slightest. I find I like both hands equally now.

 

I can sympathize with what your cursive teacher was trying to do. I also used to struggle with having to lift my pen before finishing words, but I found (based on reading the Mills book) is that if I keep my writing hand and wrist totally off the paper, and balance with the back of the fingers instead, mainly the nails of the 4th and 5th fingers of my writing hand, I can write even long words without lifting the pen up and my fingertips can easily move along the word without having to stop to reposition the paper.

 

Its kind of like gliding along on ice with your fingernails sliding along the page. Perhaps you already do this but I wanted to share this discovery because I found it really helpful and just in case others here might be interested.

 

P.S. I also take issue with the OP about italic and looped cursive being similar, and like you, consider them totally different.

Edited July 14, 2015 by cellmatrix

[Randal6393]

@cellmatrix:

 

Wow, feeling the good vibes. Thanks for that heartening post.

 

I am very envious of you, been trying for a copy of anything that has the Cataneo manuscript in it. And Harvard's book is supposed to be the best. For the height of the scripts that are written today, think you are right to use a finer point. My hand is more towards really cursive italic. Generally use a (nominal) 1.0 or 1.1 mm nib and my miniscules are 2 to 3 mm high. Have to watch my 'e's very closely or they close up on me. But it's a lot of fun to practice.

 

Should probably work with Mill's book and see where it gets me. Might try it after I paint a cigar box and carve a few figurines for my granddaughter, get a few sweaters knitted, and learn the full Tai Chi Chuan set. Naaaa ... just got too many other interesting things to do right now.

 

Best to you, always love to see your posts.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Randal6393