[diplomat]

WSkopar, on 04 November 2009 - 06:51 PM, said:

Americans do something that they're really good at; Mass Production. I say this in general terms.

rhosygell, on 04 November 2009 - 08:54 PM, said:

The American pen companies suffered the same fate as the American auto industry today by being too big and too slow to react to changing market needs. This does not say that the product was inferior, undesirable or in any way defective - it simply was not what the market needed at the time.

Thank you for stepping in with your opinion guys, I think size and inclination to exploit the mass production rather than entering niches may be the answer I was looking for.

Cheers,

[Johnny Appleseed]

Mille, on 04 November 2009 - 10:04 PM, said:

Johnny Appleseed, on 04 November 2009 - 11:13 PM, said:

Depends on what you call a couple of generations. By the 1890s, the early Palmer and late Spencarian schools were having to adapt their teaching styles to a market that expected some degree of personalization in their handwriting. It was a trend that I believe began in the Victorian upperclass in the mid 1800s (perhaps in an effort to distinguish themselves from mere "clerks" - perfect handwriting was often frowned upon among the wealthy, who preferred to use a "distinctive" handwriting), and spread downward. You can particularly see it manifest in the obsession with graphology in the early 1900s and the notion that ones handwriting was a reflection not of a style to be perfected, but an individual window into ones personality.

John

Thank you John! This is a very interesting comment. You got me interested in this. Do you you know where I can read more about this?

Handwriting in America: A Cultural History By Tamara Plakins Thornton - particularly look at Chapter 4 and 5, and specifically pages 112-117.

John

[Dave Johannsen]

rhosygell, on 04 November 2009 - 02:54 PM, said:

The American pen companies suffered the same fate as the American auto industry today by being too big and too slow to react to changing market needs.

This is not quite right... One can make a strong case that the pen industry adapted fairly quickly and adroitly. For instance, Sheaffer introduced the Snorkel in the fifties. The purpose of the Snorkel was to address one of the big complaints that people had about fountain pens, that they were "messy" (a complaint that grew quite relevent in the face of viable ballpoints). The Snorkel sold quite well, but the handwriting was on the wall for the fountain pen, US consumers were just not overly interested in fountain pens (niche market and collectors aside). The pen companies survived just fine for a long time, selling a few fountain pens and lots of ballpoints. Just because we collectors love fountain pens doesn't mean that there's a mass market for these items. Most of my colleagues would consider $2 spent on a pen to be "expensive" and excessive. The pen companies did just fine in the face of a market that had moved on to disposable and inexpensive items.



Dave

[mstone]

Johnny Appleseed, on 04 November 2009 - 06:13 PM, said:

Depends on what you call a couple of generations. By the 1890s, the early Palmer and late Spencarian schools were having to adapt their teaching styles to a market that expected some degree of personalization in their handwriting. It was a trend that I believe began in the Victorian upperclass in the mid 1800s (perhaps in an effort to distinguish themselves from mere "clerks" - perfect handwriting was often frowned upon among the wealthy, who preferred to use a "distinctive" handwriting)

Exactly--the key word was "mass". The notion of handwriting as some kind of personalized expressiveness originated as an affectation of a small (privileged) class, spread as a mass-market fad, and has faded into obscurity outside of a small group that appreciates fine handwriting. I'd call late nineteenth century to mid twentieth a fairly generous estimate.

Quote

You can particularly see it manifest in the obsession with graphology in the early 1900s

I think that's more a reflection of the era's obsession with -ologies more than indicative of the importance of handwriting. I'm sure that somewhere there is an internet chat group with people focused on phrenology where they bemoan the current lack of popular interest in skull bumps. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but sometimes its important to step back from a hobby to get perspective.

[mstone]

sumgaikid, on 04 November 2009 - 10:28 PM, said:

Apparently some folks have taken my comment about cursive writing being taught
less and less in school thinking that I was referring to teaching Spencerian
or another "perfect" script to children today. That was not my point at all.
My point was simply that teaching a form of writing(as opposed to NOT teaching
any form at all)helps to individualize a child.

I don't think anyone was under the impression that you wanted schools to teach handwriting. I do think you are romanticizing the hobby and overemphasizing its importance in modern education. I have young children starting school now, and I'm exposing them to proper writing technique (and fountain pens) but I'm under no illusion that will have any practical need to write once they get out of school, or that they will do so unless they find the hobby personally attractive. In no possible way do I think this is a detriment to them developing individuality. Written, typed, or plucked out of the brain via a technology yet to be developed, I would hope that their individuality is encompassed only by the thoughts that they have, without regard for the means they use to express them.

[Johnny Appleseed]

mstone, on 05 November 2009 - 02:15 PM, said:

Quote

You can particularly see it manifest in the obsession with graphology in the early 1900s

I think that's more a reflection of the era's obsession with -ologies more than indicative of the importance of handwriting. I'm sure that somewhere there is an internet chat group with people focused on phrenology where they bemoan the current lack of popular interest in skull bumps. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but sometimes its important to step back from a hobby to get perspective.

Well, of course - the whole notion that handwriting could reflect anything about a person was a reflection of a larger cultural trend of looking for various "windows" into personality. But it also reflects a significant change in the perception of script as a whole. In the 1700s - early 1800s, handwriting was a set of styles on learned, and ones handwriting was a measure of ones skill in mastering a particular style. Graphology requires the idea that handwriting is not merely a learned skill, but a unique aspect of the individual that is informed by unconscious impulses and determined by our personality. It is a fundimentally different concept of writing.

I see your other point - I was thinking you were referring to a few generations back from today, but I see you were putting it in a deeper historical context.

John

[mstone]

Johnny Appleseed, on 05 November 2009 - 06:31 PM, said:

Well, of course - the whole notion that handwriting could reflect anything about a person was a reflection of a larger cultural trend of looking for various "windows" into personality. But it also reflects a significant change in the perception of script as a whole. In the 1700s - early 1800s, handwriting was a set of styles on learned, and ones handwriting was a measure of ones skill in mastering a particular style. Graphology requires the idea that handwriting is not merely a learned skill, but a unique aspect of the individual that is informed by unconscious impulses and determined by our personality. It is a fundimentally different concept of writing.

I think you're definitely right that it's part of larger trend toward individuality and refutation of much older ideals of subordination of self to a larger whole and conformity as virtue.

[gyasko]

mstone, on 06 November 2009 - 07:29 AM, said:

sumgaikid, on 04 November 2009 - 10:28 PM, said:

Apparently some folks have taken my comment about cursive writing being taught
less and less in school thinking that I was referring to teaching Spencerian
or another "perfect" script to children today. That was not my point at all.
My point was simply that teaching a form of writing(as opposed to NOT teaching
any form at all)helps to individualize a child.

I don't think anyone was under the impression that you wanted schools to teach handwriting. I do think you are romanticizing the hobby and overemphasizing its importance in modern education. I have young children starting school now, and I'm exposing them to proper writing technique (and fountain pens) but I'm under no illusion that will have any practical need to write once they get out of school, or that they will do so unless they find the hobby personally attractive. In no possible way do I think this is a detriment to them developing individuality. Written, typed, or plucked out of the brain via a technology yet to be developed, I would hope that their individuality is encompassed only by the thoughts that they have, without regard for the means they use to express them.

I'm not sure that you can separate the medium of communication from communication in the abstract like that. I say that because we never have communication in the abstract; it's always mediated and it always has content (which in turn affects the mode of communication). What we do with our hands affects our brains. It's especially important with kids because the development of motor skills has some effect on the development of the intellect.

I have a daughter who is six, and like a lot of people her age, her desire to write and read is very intense. A lot of that desire is expressed through the hand. She does like to play on the computer, but she's not that interested in keyboarding as a means of communication. She wants to write with her hands, on paper. Her older brother was a little different, less interested in communicating and the encoding and decoding of signs, but very interested in the act of moving his tools over paper.

[mstone]

gyasko, on 05 November 2009 - 09:21 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you can separate the medium of communication from communication in the abstract like that. I say that because we never have communication in the abstract; it's always mediated and it always has content

Of course it does. But it's ridiculous to imply that one mode is "better" than another. The important part is what they have to say and how they say it (whether in language, in art, in music, etc.), not that they say it in cursive.

[Johnny Appleseed]

mstone, on 06 November 2009 - 05:04 AM, said:

gyasko, on 05 November 2009 - 09:21 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you can separate the medium of communication from communication in the abstract like that. I say that because we never have communication in the abstract; it's always mediated and it always has content

Of course it does. But it's ridiculous to imply that one mode is "better" than another. The important part is what they have to say and how they say it (whether in language, in art, in music, etc.), not that they say it in cursive.

Well - again I will bring up Virginia Berninger's research that shows evidence of different neurological process with handwritten work, vs computer. Her research does seem to show at least some greater complexity of thought coming out of handwritten work (and note again that it is only about handwriting and has nothing to do with cursive vs other forms of handwriting).

John

[mstone]

Johnny Appleseed, on 06 November 2009 - 12:41 PM, said:

mstone, on 06 November 2009 - 05:04 AM, said:

gyasko, on 05 November 2009 - 09:21 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you can separate the medium of communication from communication in the abstract like that. I say that because we never have communication in the abstract; it's always mediated and it always has content

Of course it does. But it's ridiculous to imply that one mode is "better" than another. The important part is what they have to say and how they say it (whether in language, in art, in music, etc.), not that they say it in cursive.

Well - again I will bring up Virginia Berninger's research that shows evidence of different neurological process with handwritten work, vs computer. Her research does seem to show at least some greater complexity of thought coming out of handwritten work (and note again that it is only about handwriting and has nothing to do with cursive vs other forms of handwriting).

As far as I can tell her research is focused on primary education, not adult activities. It was probably done on a computer, as well.

[Johnny Appleseed]

mstone, on 06 November 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

Johnny Appleseed, on 06 November 2009 - 12:41 PM, said:

mstone, on 06 November 2009 - 05:04 AM, said:

gyasko, on 05 November 2009 - 09:21 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you can separate the medium of communication from communication in the abstract like that. I say that because we never have communication in the abstract; it's always mediated and it always has content

Of course it does. But it's ridiculous to imply that one mode is "better" than another. The important part is what they have to say and how they say it (whether in language, in art, in music, etc.), not that they say it in cursive.

Well - again I will bring up Virginia Berninger's research that shows evidence of different neurological process with handwritten work, vs computer. Her research does seem to show at least some greater complexity of thought coming out of handwritten work (and note again that it is only about handwriting and has nothing to do with cursive vs other forms of handwriting).

As far as I can tell her research is focused on primary education, not adult activities. It was probably done on a computer, as well.

Yes, but this (sub) conversation largely started with Sumgaikid's comments that teaching handwriting helped to develop a kids individuality (which I don't agree with), and gyaso's comment that "It's especially important with kids because the development of motor skills has some effect on the development of the intellect." We are largely talking about kids and the value of teaching kids cursive or handwriting in general. Handwriting (again, not cursive only) appears to have concrete benefits in terms of brain development and child education.

If you want to talk about adult activities, then people should use whatever works. I know a number of people on this board - many of whom write for a living - who feel that drafting in longhand helps them clarify their thoughts and write better. Probably an equal number (on this specialist hobby board) work directly on a computer.

I have not seen any research on teens, but I suspect the adult approach is probably more appropriate - by about 8th grade you should have the tools of communication down pretty well, and be free to choose what works best for you, within the limits of the requirements for submission of work (eg. final work should probably be wordprocessed or e-submitted).

John

PS. As a side thought, I have been mulling over an idea that the teacher of my daughter shared. The school is a Waldorf school, and one of the ideas the founder of the school held was that kids should learn a new alphabet every year, in addition to learning two languages (from different language groups) starting in grade one. The first two years are spent on regular print, then cursive in third grade, Viking runes in fourth grade, Greek in fifth grade, Italic calligraphy in 6th (going along with subject matter on the Middle ages and Renessance - all of the other alphabets are connected to historical subject matter). I wonder if there is something to that idea? We know that learning a second language earlier makes if easier for children to learn additional languages later in life, and there is some definite brain development that occurs with early 2nd language aquisition. I wonder if there might also be some advantage for children to learn different scrips?

This post has been edited by Johnny Appleseed: 06 November 2009 - 10:32 PM