The Lost Art Of Writing

[Shangas]

I was taught cursive in school ("joined up writing" us young'un's used to call it) and I just loved it. It was all swirly and fun.

 

And damnation and hellfire, I'll continue using cursive until I die.

[mstone]

If it wasn't a joke, I'd have to tell the person to sound out the words, and failing that, I'd have to read along slowly.

 

What good would that do if the letterforms are unfamiliar? Do you read secretary hand or english chancery (different from the later italic/italian chancery) or even shorthand? (Consider something like the below; if the answer is yes, then you're more likely a scholar or an enthusiast rather than a member of the general public.) Writing systems evolve, and part of that process is to discard obsolete forms.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Shakespeare-Testament.jpg

 

I'll take what you mean, but wording it as "original letterforms" opens up a lot of holes.

 

"Original" was probably a poor choice (what is "first" in a evolving process dating back thousands of years?)--I meant the form that people are usually taught first and which they read in books and on screen; "fundamental" would probably have been better. It's interesting to note that printed material by and large ignores 1000 years of handwriting evolution and reflects majuscules which were common in republican Rome and miniscules which aren't far off half uncials which predate the fall of the western empire. Why? Because those were just plain easier to read. Modification of those forms which were intended to maximize density on the page or speed of writing in volume just aren't relevant to most people in the 21st century and have no compelling reason to remain common knowledge.

 

I'm sorry you have so many of these people to deal with that you have to dumb down your handwriting.

 

I fail to see why it is dumb to use a form developed for clarity when communicating with people for whom handwriting is increasingly nothing but an anachronism.

Edited May 7, 2011 by mstone

[JDR]

My grandchildren are being taught cursive in their school. My granddaughter is in first grade and she has been taught (just like my grandson was) to add a tail, or slight upswing at the end of each letter, except "P" and "R". Now in second grade, my grandson is being taught to link the letters together by extending the tail to form the next letter. Just like film, it will be a long time before cursive is dead!

[mstone]

Repeating myself, I think, but why is there such an air of mutual exclusivity going on here. I think people are just saying that cursive should not be indecipherable to anyone with a basic education, and that the tiny amount of time required to master that is worthwhile.

 

I understand that people are saying that, I just disagree. :-) Almost all the handwritten material I see these days is the stuff I write myself--it's just not common in my work environment. And I'm not exactly in an exotic workplace; it seems that electronic and printed communications are the norm around here, anyway. So even if it is taught to this generation in school it will end up being some half-remembered grade school lesson twenty years from now. Reading cursive is like any other mental skill, it will deteriorate if not used. I do find it somewhat odd that people can't even imagine that this is true. I suppose that's the result of being in a self selected group that tends to fiddle with archaic writing systems as a hobby, so they can't even imagine going years at a time without seeing any cursive writing?

[Dino Silone]

If it wasn't a joke, I'd have to tell the person to sound out the words, and failing that, I'd have to read along slowly.

 

What good would that do if the letterforms are unfamiliar? Do you read secretary hand or english chancery (different from the later italic/italian chancery) or even shorthand? (Consider something like the below; if the answer is yes, then you're more likely a scholar or an enthusiast rather than a member of the general public.) Writing systems evolve, and part of that process is to discard obsolete forms.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Shakespeare-Testament.jpg

 

I'll take what you mean, but wording it as "original letterforms" opens up a lot of holes.

 

"Original" was probably a poor choice (what is "first" in a evolving process dating back thousands of years?)--I meant the form that people are usually taught first and which they read in books and on screen; "fundamental" would probably have been better. It's interesting to note that printed material by and large ignores 1000 years of handwriting evolution and reflects majuscules which were common in republican Rome and miniscules which aren't far off half uncials which predate the fall of the western empire. Why? Because those were just plain easier to read. Modification of those forms which were intended to maximize density on the page or speed of writing in volume just aren't relevant to most people in the 21st century and have no compelling reason to remain common knowledge.

 

I'm sorry you have so many of these people to deal with that you have to dumb down your handwriting.

 

I fail to see why it is dumb to use a form developed for clarity when communicating with people for whom handwriting is increasingly nothing but an anachronism.

+1

 

Nostalgia is fun, when kept in perspective. When it becomes militant,... not so much.

[nicholasyeo]

Cursive handwriting is lovely!

[mstone]

Perhaps I mistake what you find odd that can't be imagined - that if cursive is not understood it will be forgotten because it is not used? That there could be decades between seeing written samples? Fairly easy ones. That there will be decades between seeing any handwritten text, I strongly doubt - but then many will not see what they can't understand; it may be mentally invisible.

 

No, I find it odd that people can't imagine that there are people right now who rarely if ever see handwritten documents, are years out of practice for reading such documents, and aren't particularly interested in reviving such skills. The have other priorities and other things to do. They're not stupid, they're not lazy, they simply don't care about deciphering documents written in cursive handwriting. My thoughts are addressed mainly at the idea that it's risible that someone can't decipher cursive, or that there's something wrong with people who aren't interested in doing so.

 

One of the most important points about not reading cursive is that it cuts one off from many primary sources. I should not like to be in the position of being unable to read Orwell manuscripts, for instance, for want of a little timetabling space when I was very young. Neither should I want to have my fathers logs and letters appear to me as so much Venusian.

 

People who are interested in doing so will spend the time and effort to learn to do so, the same way that people who want to read cuneiform do today. Most people don't, and it doesn't impoverish their lives that they do not. For the record, I'm not convinced that mandatory cuneiform classes are justified, either.

 

Your example is of secretary hand (?) of several centuries ago. It ends, I think, 'In witness whereof I have hereunto put my seal hand the day and year first above written.'' This is a notoriously difficult hand to read.

 

See, there will always be people who learn esoteric skills. It would be a boring world if everyone were the same.

[HDoug]

My friend's college age son can read my conjoined italic but not his mom's schoolbook Palmer. The loopy letters are unfamiliar and present too much of a challenge to the kind of quick recognition required of reading (as opposed to deciphering). It's a shame, but I don't know what we should do about it...

 

Doug

[Moagy]

I learnt cursive, I still write cursive (though a handwriting expert would do this: if they saw it, because it has transformed itself through writing at speed over the years into...well I don't what you'd call it - messy?!). I am so glad I learnt however, because it means that I can at least a hazard a guess at what has been written when I look at the original archive documents to do with my family's genealogy - census forms, birth, marriage and death certificates for instance.

 

I can't alway read it first time, but if I stare at the word long enough usually it comes to me what has been written. Quite often my sense of satisfaction is enhanced because it was difficult, and not for the world would I trade that in to get it in a more accessible but not original format. I've seen my great great grandparents signatures! I've seen the truly shocking report on one of my ancestors who applied for Poor Relief and was turned down in what, to me, is a horribly callous way, written by someone who actually saw her and heard her. History comes alive before me because I am able to read the words as they were written down at the time. What a gift! I would not deny this to the next generation for all the tea in China, I hope cursive never dies.

 

Morag

 

PS - I watched a tv programme about Nelson's Navy tonight - I'm interested in the subject anyway because I have a somewhat Naval background, but blow me down, did I not spend a large proportion of the programme just admiring the writing in the ships logs about the various people the programme was talking about? And actually, when I come to think of it, as a lot of the logs were shown in close up as illustration, there was an assumption on the part of the programme makers that those watching would be able to read what they could see!

[kernando]

My friend's college age son can read my conjoined italic but not his mom's schoolbook Palmer. The loopy letters are unfamiliar and present too much of a challenge to the kind of quick recognition required of reading (as opposed to deciphering). It's a shame, but I don't know what we should do about it...

 

Doug

 

He had to have at least one year of learning cursive in elementary school, so what style did they teach? I think of Palmer as being only one step loopier than the D'Nealian my district used, and of basic cursive as being a step away from joined up Italic but with a few different letters. How did he grow up not being able to read notes from his mom?

 

Does he want penpals? The vast majority here would practice their cursive on him.

[ethernautrix]

All I know for sure is that my mother looks dismayed whenever I curse, so I am careful with my language around her.

 

And around most people, except in traffic.

[ethernautrix]

Oh! Cursive.... Never mind. I cursive a lot.

[HDoug]

...

How did he grow up not being able to read notes from his mom?

 

Well, that is a question for all eras. And a happy Mother's Day to all.

 

Doug

[encremental]

As handwriting is part of the national curriculum in the UK, and is scored in SATs (which concentrates a school's mind wonderfully) cursive is still taught everywhere, although styles and methods have never been prescribed.

 

What is interesting is that a current popular way of teaching handwriting (in maybe 20% of schools) is for children to begin joining letters right from the start, so that they never learn how to print !. Obviously, they use capital letters where appropriate, but the muscle memory is trained for cursive. Although a teacher myself, my charges are three and four, so our formal mark making is more to do with pattern than correct letter formation (ball and stick, zigzags etc) and our school doesn't subscribe to this system. A friend of mine does teach it however, and she reports that children particularly enjoy writing the ligatures, which they call 'kicks' mainly because they are encouraged to shout 'kick!' as they write them. I don't like to think about the noise, but then she does have a fairly small class ...

 

Thinking about skills which appear and disappear as needed, do you remember that period of a couple of years after mobile phones came on the scene, but before predictive text became widespread? Teenagers quickly learnt the complex patterns of button pressing needed to send a message almost at the speed of speech. Easily as complex as those needed to make fine lace by hand, I would imagine. All gone - firstly with the rise of predictive text, and now touch screens, which have bred a new sort of one handed 'hunt and peck'.

 

John

[kernando]

...

How did he grow up not being able to read notes from his mom?

 

Well, that is a question for all eras. And a happy Mother's Day to all.

 

Doug

 

On the latter, indeed, to all the mothers at least. On the former, we are taking being able to read a note from Mom as separate from actually heeding it, right? Oh well, maybe she'll have to leave off so many leading/connecting strokes to leave him to focus on the downstrokes until he picks it back up. I am a fan of both italic nibs and round flexible nibs for giving greater line weight to downstrokes.

[kernando]

...

What is interesting is that a current popular way of teaching handwriting (in maybe 20% of schools) is for children to begin joining letters right from the start, so that they never learn how to print !. ...

 

Thinking about skills which appear and disappear as needed, do you remember that period of a couple of years after mobile phones came on the scene, but before predictive text became widespread? Teenagers quickly learnt the complex patterns of button pressing needed to send a message almost at the speed of speech. Easily as complex as those needed to make fine lace by hand, I would imagine. All gone - firstly with the rise of predictive text, and now touch screens, which have bred a new sort of one handed 'hunt and peck'.

 

John

 

You had me smiling, as in almost laughing, at the lace comparison. I hardly ever send text messages, so I never got good at the number pad thing, and I have used the other kinds. With the thumb keyboards they at least got to use two thumbs. With the touch screens that magnify the selected letter and then select upon lifthing the finger, I wonder if the pecking gets replaced with more of a picking motion.

 

I never do understand hunting and pecking from anybody significantly older than I am though, because I can use a manual typewriter, and anybody who grew up having to use manuals should find keyboards really easy, and put their hands down, and stop looking down.

 

You got me nostalgic for the promise of handwriting recognition that supposed to learn to read people's cursive, like Newton, before Palm Pilot expected people to learn a modified alphabet.

 

To go backwards to handwriting, I'd read about the whole learning cursive only thing. And didn't it used to be that way before? I've been glad that I was never really taught to write in ball and stick. When we really started handwriting in 1st grade (that's after kindergarten here, so ages 6-7), we were taught in D'Nealian which is a dumbed-down (but not too bad) thing in between italic and disjointed cursive, and I thought the ball and stick printing that some kids picked up somewhere was weird. I would have preferred it if our classes had used a curlier style model though.

[The Good Captain]

You know, I've just spotted an advert in one of our local magazines for a 'Cursive Writing Club'.

I'm wondering whether to join or not.

[ildbig]

Reading this is interesting. The thought that cursive is now useless? I don't know how I could survive without cursive. How does one pass quick and legible notes in a deposition without cursive? How does one take notes on a computer-inaccessible phone conversation without cursive? How do I even write my packing list for a vacation without cursive (printing is a poor option -- it takes too long).

 

In college: I can see using a computer to take notes in a history class. But what about a math or economics class, where one has to draw graphs or write equations? Same for an exam in those subjects? (Assuming the prof has enough drive to require and read essay questions.)

 

Handwriting is certainly much less required today than previously; there is no doubt about it. But it is hard to say it is extinct -- especially in many (modern) fields and professions. If anything, I wish I and my colleagues knew shorthand!

[Mickey]

..........

 

No, I find it odd that people can't imagine that there are people right now who rarely if ever see handwritten documents, are years out of practice for reading such documents, and aren't particularly interested in reviving such skills. The have other priorities and other things to do. They're not stupid, they're not lazy, they simply don't care about deciphering documents written in cursive handwriting. My thoughts are addressed mainly at the idea that it's risible that someone can't decipher cursive, or that there's something wrong with people who aren't interested in doing so.

 

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

One of us is going round in circles and not listening - that's a sure sign to leave off. But I agree on the last point - I for one merely said that it would be better that they did, not that they were stupid or any of that - I did, however, note that their choices were being restricted, their interests sculpted, how I thought this was happening, and why I disliked it.

 

I'm getting into this thread rather late, but I have to say I generally agree with you. Being unable to read documents in their original form is to lose some of the writer's intent. Not only that, one likely under-appreciates the time it took to put the idea on the page and the amount of effort it took to frame the thoughts before putting them permanently on the page. (You can often tell how long a writer suffered over a thought, and thus an indication of its significance, from the fluidity of the writing.)

 

This may be an extreme analogy, but how well does one understand Dostoevsky if one reads him only in translation. A similar example: I have a copy of the Torah, translated by Rabbi Fox. This translation is a monumental effort to reconstruct what is lost to the reader who is unable to read the text in the original Hebrew and with a full knowledge of the tropes and subtle meanings which are lost in unannotated "interpretations." Context gradually disappears with each reinterpretation and reproduction. Entropy.

 

Not being able to read cursive also limits the possibility of reading marginalia, which is of prime importance when you're trying to understand how people make decisions. Not being able to read manuscript, before the printers and editors 'clean things up,' is to divorce oneself from potentially important parts of one's cultural history. (You also put yourself at the mercy of "interpreters," who may have agendas quite at odds with the original writers.) Again by way of analogy, compare a manuscript from Mozart's hand with one from Beethoven's. There is an education right there. (BTW, trying to read music manuscript is often as difficult as reading a prescription scrawled by your doctor. You can't even aspire to artist level performances of early music if you are unable read the original notation, tablature, etc.)

 

A great deal is made of the accelerated learning possible with modern aids, such as calculators and computers and by removing all the "unnecessary" things from the curriculum. Unfortunatly, things, sometimes very important things are lost by not following the old paths, at least for a while.. Does a student who can't reliably do fairly rudimentary calculations without a calculator have the same sense of numbers as the student who was forced to acquire the requisite skills? What is lost by not learning to use a slip stick? (My first slide rule was circular. Being circular still didn't make carrying it cool.) It may be possible to build a skyscraper on a foundation of sand, but will it stand? Hard to tell.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mickey

[KateGladstone]

<br />I really don't understand people who say they can't "read" cursive. Aside from a few letters (i.e. f,b, and z namely) most of the letters are formed the same way. And even then, you can guess what those letters are based on the rest of the word.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

Besides the most different-looking letters (b, f, k, r, s, z, and almost all the capitals), the other letters in cursive also have large differences from their printed counterparts -- these differences occur at the beginnings and/or ends of he letters, making it very hard for many people (I was one of them, until age 24) to discern where a letter-part stops being part of the letter and starts being part of a join.