Question About Arm Vs. Finger Muscle Movements

[Tess]

Here's the link--my understanding is that we should link out instead of embedding large pictures. Is that correct?

 

My question

 

Any advice would be great! My sincerest apologies if I got the form of this picture posting wrong!

[NKessler]

It will definitely be worthwhile to learn Palmer exactly as it is taught. Using your whole arm will completely eliminate any fatigue from writing and will eventually give your writing a "flow" that you just don't feel if you use your fingers to form your lines.

 

Also, your link/photo is fine and easy to see.

 

Good luck with your practice!

[Ghost Plane]

Actually, you have that reversed. The pictures should be embedded on the site. The software will resize them to fit, tho' it's helpful if you can to spare the folks still on dial up or on mobiles.

[melissa59]

Using your whole arm will completely eliminate any fatigue from writing and will eventually give your writing a "flow" that you just don't feel if you use your fingers to form your lines.

 

It is going to take awhile for me to get to the point where my writing "flows". Instead, my arm writing exercises look worse than most of the examples in the "write with your other hand" thread. I've not been good about working on it every day. I keep finding myself jotting quick notes here and there using my former scrawl or writing in bed, which, at least for me, is not conducive to arm writing.

[pmhudepo]

It can be difficult to get rid of old habits, particularly if there are many triggers throughout the day. So easy to fall back when you're in a hurry and not paying attention to your writing technique.

 

If your arm writing exercises look "hopeless" and annoy you, you could try doodling with your pen. Draw circles, lines, various shapes. Get used to a comfortable posture, grip and motion without the pressure to actually write something. Slowly move towards actual letters, words, sentences. When possible, slow down at work and write a few notes with your best hand, perhaps a short todo list, or some comments on a document.

 

Finally, I find EC Mills' Modern Business Penmanship a great book to use for my own writing practice. I like to start the day with a little practice session.

[caliken]

It will definitely be worthwhile to learn Palmer exactly as it is taught. Using your whole arm will completely eliminate any fatigue from writing

Palmer did not advocate 'whole-arm' movement.

 

On the contrary, he considered whole-arm movement a "pernicious habit and difficult to overcome."

 

Using his method, he said "Muscular movement, as applied to writing, is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the larger part of the arm, forward of the elbow, on the desk."

 

Ken

[GClef]

It will definitely be worthwhile to learn Palmer exactly as it is taught. Using your whole arm will completely eliminate any fatigue from writing

Palmer did not advocate 'whole-arm' movement.

 

On the contrary, he considered whole-arm movement a "pernicious habit and difficult to overcome."

 

Using his method, he said "Muscular movement, as applied to writing, is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the larger part of the arm, forward of the elbow, on the desk."

 

Ken

 

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/photobucket-5663-1340115691339.jpg

[NKessler]

By "whole arm", I meant more than just your fingers and wrist. Using literally your entire arm to write Palmer would be very uncomfortable and would likely make it much harder to learn. For someone just trying to break out of "finger writing" I find it helpful to tell them that the whole arm is a part of writing and let practice of their chosen method teach the rest. After a few weeks of diligent practice with a good book or teacher just about anyone will see some noticeable results.

 

Just slow down, focus, and be patient while you practice, even if its just for a few minutes at a time. A month or two from how you'll be very surprised at how far your writing has come.

[caliken]

GClef : I agree that too much emphasis is being placed on the "whole-arm" technique. It's only part of the story.

 

Super handwriting BTW

 

Ken

[Pierce]

http://pierce.tv/uploads/answer1.jpg

[Mickey]

It will definitely be worthwhile to learn Palmer exactly as it is taught. Using your whole arm will completely eliminate any fatigue from writing

Palmer did not advocate 'whole-arm' movement.

 

On the contrary, he considered whole-arm movement a "pernicious habit and difficult to overcome."

 

Using his method, he said "Muscular movement, as applied to writing, is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the larger part of the arm, forward of the elbow, on the desk."

 

Ken

 

Ken,

 

It's funny, but what Palmer seems to be advocating, is exactly what I have always heard described as whole-arm: the forearm semi-anchored to the desk (at the muscular pad in front of the elbow) with the motive force being generated by the muscles surrounding the shoulder. Leaving OP and flourishing out of the discussion, was there someone of any note who advocated some other version of whole-arm, one where there was not some sort of anchoring near the elbow? Or have we simply run into another nomenclature war?

[caliken]

It's funny, but what Palmer seems to be advocating, is exactly what I have always heard described as whole-arm: the forearm semi-anchored to the desk (at the muscular pad in front of the elbow) with the motive force being generated by the muscles surrounding the shoulder. Leaving OP and flourishing out of the discussion, was there someone of any note who advocated some other version of whole-arm, one where there was not some sort of anchoring near the elbow? Or have we simply run into another nomenclature war?

Here is the complete 'Palmer' quote from "An Elegant Hand"

 

"Muscular Movement, as applied to writing, is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the larger part of the arm forward of the elbow on the desk."

He did not mean whole-arm movement which was made with the forearm raised from the desk. Palmer said that he had once practiced whole-arm movement capitals until he could make them with a great deal of skill and he was undoubtedly referring to his work under George Gaskell. He considered whole-arm movement a 'pernicuious habit and difficult to overcome'"

 

I think that the definitions are fairly clear.

 

from "The Art of Penmanship"

"What is designated by writing teachers as the Whole Arm, or Free Arm Movement, in which the arm is lifted free from the desk and completes the letter with a dash or a swoop, is necessary in Ornamental Penmanship".

 

from "An Elegant Hand"

"Madarasz himself said that for capitals he used "the muscular movement" presumably meaning movement of the forearm without the forearm leaving the table. "Whole-arm movement" at least the way Gaskell taught it, meant just that - with the arm off the table. Palmer claimed to be good at it, but said that it was a bad habit to adopt."

 

"By observing him (Madarasz) closely, I noticed that his arm would be raised slightly from the table when executing large, free capitals and gently lowered to the table when writing the small letters."

 

There was an earlier definition of "whole-arm movement" meaning the same as "muscular movement" but this was totally superceded by Spencerianism.

 

I prefer the more modern definitions which seem to be generall accepted and are quite clear.

 

"Whole-arm movement" in which the entire arm is free of the writing surface. This is really only necessary for very large letters or flourishing.

 

"Muscular movement" in which the large forearm muscle acts as a pivot and all movement is controlled from there with the fingers still.

 

"Finger movement" in which all of the pen manipulation is with the fingers only, with the arm still and the side of the hand resting on the table.

 

"Combined movement" in which Muscular-movement and Finger-movement combine in the writing process.

 

This is not a contentious issue. This is purely my interpretion, and is open to discussion and/or disagreement.

 

Ken

[Mickey]

It's funny, but what Palmer seems to be advocating, is exactly what I have always heard described as whole-arm: the forearm semi-anchored to the desk (at the muscular pad in front of the elbow) with the motive force being generated by the muscles surrounding the shoulder. Leaving OP and flourishing out of the discussion, was there someone of any note who advocated some other version of whole-arm, one where there was not some sort of anchoring near the elbow? Or have we simply run into another nomenclature war?

Here is the complete 'Palmer' quote from "An Elegant Hand"

 

"Muscular Movement, as applied to writing, is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the larger part of the arm forward of the elbow on the desk."

He did not mean whole-arm movement which was made with the forearm raised from the desk. Palmer said that he had once practiced whole-arm movement capitals until he could make them with a great deal of skill and he was undoubtedly referring to his work under George Gaskell. He considered whole-arm movement a 'pernicuious habit and difficult to overcome'"

 

I think that the definitions are fairly clear.

 

from "The Art of Penmanship"

"What is designated by writing teachers as the Whole Arm, or Free Arm Movement, in which the arm is lifted free from the desk and completes the letter with a dash or a swoop, is necessary in Ornamental Penmanship".

 

from "An Elegant Hand"

"Madarasz himself said that for capitals he used "the muscular movement" presumably meaning movement of the forearm without the forearm leaving the table. "Whole-arm movement" at least the way Gaskell taught it, meant just that - with the arm off the table. Palmer claimed to be good at it, but said that it was a bad habit to adopt."

 

"By observing him (Madarasz) closely, I noticed that his arm would be raised slightly from the table when executing large, free capitals and gently lowered to the table when writing the small letters."

 

There was an earlier definition of "whole-arm movement" meaning the same as "muscular movement" but this was totally superceded by Spencerianism.

 

I prefer the more modern definitions which seem to be generall accepted and are quite clear.

 

"Whole-arm movement" in which the entire arm is free of the writing surface. This is really only necessary for very large letters or flourishing.

 

"Muscular movement" in which the large forearm muscle acts as a pivot and all movement is controlled from there with the fingers still.

 

"Finger movement" in which all of the pen manipulation is with the fingers only, with the arm still and the side of the hand resting on the table.

 

"Combined movement" in which Muscular-movement and Finger-movement combine in the writing process.

 

This is not a contentious issue. This is purely my interpretion, and is open to discussion and/or disagreement.

 

Ken

 

We continue to be very much on the same page. What you call 'combined movement' I've always understood as 'whole-arm,' as I adopted the broadest definition of arm, which included the hand and (obviously) the fingers. Arm-writing or arm-only-writing, I considered a different technique or approach, and, if applied to normal handwriting, nearly as pernicious a habit as Palmer believed it to be.

 

Your citations also seem to agree with my understanding that the arm becomes free of the desk (only) for flourishes and large features requiring rapid movements not easily accommodated by an anchored forearm.

[caliken]

Your citations also seem to agree with my understanding that the arm becomes free of the desk (only) for flourishes and large features requiring rapid movements not easily accommodated by an anchored forearm.

Mickey,

 

That is precisely my understanding of the situation.

 

The definition I have cited of "whole-arm" writing, seems to have been around for some time and would now appear to be the accepted use of the term throughout the Spencerian community. I'm not certain about this - it's just my perception.

 

This may seem to be nit-picking, but if any meaningful discussions are to take place, it's important that common understanding of word-usage is agreed, if possible. The recent confusion about 'cursive' is a case in point! Do you agree? Every time I see the term 'cursive' I have to remind myself that the writer is probably referring to 'American' cursive being part of the Spencerian tradition, and not Italic cursive which is of my heritage!

 

Ken

Edited June 20, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

Your citations also seem to agree with my understanding that the arm becomes free of the desk (only) for flourishes and large features requiring rapid movements not easily accommodated by an anchored forearm.

Mickey,

 

That is precisely my understanding of the situation.

 

The definition I have cited of "whole-arm" writing, seems to have been around for some time and would now appear to be the accepted use of the term throughout the Spencerian community. I'm not certain about this - it's just my perception.

 

Not really being a part of the community, simply a practitioner, I can't really speak for anyone other than myself. The free of the desk connotation may be common in the OP community, but that is yet another pointed pen ghetto of which I am neither a member nor spokesman. Frankly, I doubt that it is. I suspect the common understanding is a definition in the negative space, i.e., 'whole arm' equals 'not confined to the fingers."

 

Zaner's description of 'Arm Writing' has the forearm planted on the desk. That's been a good enough source for me. I believe the problem is not so much agreeing on a single term as getting others to accept (or understand?) that arm writing or whole-arm writing does not exclude the fingers. That seems sufficient to me. As you say about cursive, we all have our prejudices and mine is to think of whole-arm as including the hand and fingers. Given a year or two of retraining, I might learn to say something else consistently.

 

The biggest problem we have is that the published 'experts' of the golden age were in competition with each other, and proclaiming one's own flavor of snake oil superior and the other guy's impossibly bad was standard operating procedure. Distortion and misrepresentation of the competing product was high art. Unfortunately, that leaves us in the 21st century with the difficult task of figuring out who meant what by whatever.

 

This may seem to be nit-picking, but if any meaningful discussions are to take place, it's important that common understanding of word-usage is agreed, if possible. The recent confusion about 'cursive' is a case in point! Do you agree? Every time I see the term 'cursive' I have to remind myself that the writer is probably referring to 'American' cursive being part of the Spencerian tradition, and not Italic cursive which is of my heritage!

 

Ken

 

(Which is why I advocated for the even more generic sense of cursive, 'a hand written in haste,' which is etymologically correct and would also include a host of other hands (neither italic nor of the American tradition) to which the modifier cursive has been routinely appended.)

 

I agree we should be clear, but is 'combined movement,' probably the more accurate descriptor for the desirable approach, in common enough use? 'Blended movement' seems even more apropos, but usage of that seems rarer still. What to do? Less a definitive statement from an uncontested expert, nearly any term will require qualifiers.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Mickey

[melissa59]

I think all this is starting to make more sense.

I'm going to need to read through these posts a few more times, digest it a bit and then put it to practice.

 

It sure beats what I thought "whole arm" writing was. Here is what I was trying to do:

Only pinkie finger touching paper. Elbow hiked up so arm doesn't touch desk. Movement from shoulder.

No wonder my arm has been so sore!

 

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but YouTube videos showing how to form calligraphic letters seldom show anything but the nib and pen, never the arm. Trying to learn proper form from words and the occasional simple sketch can be difficult.

[smk]

GClef : I agree that too much emphasis is being placed on the "whole-arm" technique. It's only part of the story.

 

I too agree wholeheartedly. I also believe that it's something that develops naturally as one writes in different situations and/or positions. It seems to me that the manuals on Business Hand stress sitting position and posture much more than arm movement.

 

Super handwriting BTW

Ken

 

Yup! I quite agree with this too.

 

Salman

[Tess]

Thanks for all the responses; this has been quite interesting.

 

So here's my follow up question...I've been practicing Palmer and I just hate it. I feel slightly guilty about it, but I despise how it looks. It's way too round-y and loopy and flow-y.

 

Any suggestions for a hand that is a little sharper and less incessantly round/curvy?

[caliken]

Thanks for all the responses; this has been quite interesting.

 

So here's my follow up question...I've been practicing Palmer and I just hate it. I feel slightly guilty about it, but I despise how it looks. It's way too round-y and loopy and flow-y.

 

Any suggestions for a hand that is a little sharper and less incessantly round/curvy?

 

Italic is the obvious choice. Clean lines, no loops and easy to read.

 

Have a look at the top of this forum for free "Chancery Italic Script Instructions"

 

 

Ken

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Champagne3.jpg

Edited June 20, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

Thanks for all the responses; this has been quite interesting.

 

So here's my follow up question...I've been practicing Palmer and I just hate it. I feel slightly guilty about it, but I despise how it looks. It's way too round-y and loopy and flow-y.

 

Any suggestions for a hand that is a little sharper and less incessantly round/curvy?

 

Italic is the obvious choice. Clean lines, no loops and easy to read.

 

Have a look at the top of this forum for free "Chancery Italic Script Instructions"

 

 

Ken

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Champagne3.jpg

 

I agree. Italic, whether cursive or formal, is an excellent choice, either as a starting point for further study or as a goal in itself. It is a handsome, readable, and well suited to self study.

 

(Personally, I've never much cared for Palmer, either.)