Ship of Fools: The Death Of Cursive

Thread: The Death Of Cursive Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027804

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I am now old enough to remember learning to write with that now ancient of scribing instruments, the fountain pen. When we did it - at the age of 6-7, we learnt to write cursive. It was painful and slightly boring, but over time I began to understand its value and to an extent even today I keep seeing afresh the value and sheer beauty of the written word and its various scripts.

Only a few months ago a report came out here outlining teaching and research difficulties faced by universities throughout the land (which covers two countries). The report claimed that the vast majority of schools were no longer teaching cursive to children and at the age when they would normally be doing so, they were now moving directly into typing on a computer. The claimed result was that a very significant number of children could only print when writing with a pen. Universities and colleges are reporting that students cannot read their tutors and lecturers hand written notes and cannot read hand written documents in archives.

I read it, somewhat unsurprised; thought it was another scaremongering piece. Then I was visiting a family in the UK and the 12 year old son couldn't read my writing. I gently enquired about his own writing and he was able to print, but had no notion what cursive was or 'joined up writing'. Is this normal? Is it happening elsewhere in the world? At first, as I say, I wasn't shocked. But now I wonder what the cultural loss will be - not just in reading stuff, but the whole art of writing....or am I scaremongering myself?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Not teaching cursive is normal. But I've yet to experience any problems w/ my university students not being able to read my cursive writing. Maybe the problem is not with reading cursive per se, but with reading poorly written/sloppy cursive. Which is sort of why they've stopped teaching it.

[ 09. October 2014, 23:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My children have execrable handwriting. But they can read my script. If it is any comfort to you, I usually use Palmer hand, the 'joined writing' they used to teach in elementary school. I can also write in uncial, italic, and Gothic, and know how to cut a quill or a reed into a pen. However, the TSA took my pen knife from me the last time I went on an airplane.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

In Australian primary schools, children learn a very modified form of cursive that is like joined up printing, but they have handwriting books in which they practice and the technique is practiced, so the reports of the death of cursive, at least in Australia are much exaggerated.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

Not teaching cursive is normal.

Really?! I find that a bit depressing to be honest. That some (maybe even most) cannot do it well seems like a very weird reason to stop teaching people altogether.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

Not teaching cursive is normal.
Really?! I find that a bit depressing to be honest. That some (maybe even most) cannot do it well seems like a very weird reason to stop teaching people altogether.

They're not teaching it because in today's world, it's not deemed necessary or important, especially compared to learning to use computers. I can't really argue with that. I honestly haven't seen any ill-effects among my univ. students who haven't learned cursive. There are all sorts of other things I find my students haven't learned in high school that I would have liked or expected them to learn that do effect their ability to do university level work. Writing in cursive, not so much.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

I had to learn cursive in primary school, and had horrible, messy handwriting until I finally gave up and developed my own, neat, non-cursive style.

IMO, a lack of teaching cursive won't be the end of the world.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I certainly can't say I miss trying to decipher cryptic scribbles on messy lined paper. Computers were not just a godsend to students!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Interestingly, studies seem to indicate cursive helps cognitive development.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

It sounds like printing is just as good though as cursive for that though. From the article:

quote:
In one Indiana University study,[3] researchers conducted brain scans on pre-literate 5-year olds before and after receiving different letter-learning instruction. In children who had practiced self-generated printing by hand, the neural activity was far more enhanced and "adult-like" than in those who had simply looked at letters.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not quite as good.

quote:
Cursive writing, compared to printing, is even more beneficial because the movement tasks are more demanding, the letters are less stereotypical, and the visual recognition requirements create a broader repertoire of letter representation. Cursive is also faster and more likely to engage students by providing a better sense of personal style and ownership.

Italics and bold, mine.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Fair point. I think I'd rather give children complex art to do though. The way I see it, cursive is harder to read than print and slower than typing. And yes, I did learn to write in cursive at school, perhaps one of the last to do here. I approve of children creating things with their hands, and wish we did tons more of that with them. But cursive isn't nearly the most complex or creative thing they could be making.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Don't know about speed. I can take notes in writing usually verbatim depending on speech speed . I think it depends on how and what you learned to do. Can't type very well.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

I did learn to write cursive in school - in late-90s Ontario, no less, when the educational apparatus was pretty much collapsing around us. All I remember was the tapes of twee instrumental music they played (supposedly reflecting the movement of the strokes) to inspire the work of our hands. It's a skill I seldom use now, though I can trot it out when needed. Reading others' can be a bugger though.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Sixty years ago, I learnt cursive. Ball point pens create sloppy cursive - the cursive I do best is with a fountain pen. Nowadays I do a mix of print capitals (hate cursive capitals) followed by cursive script.

I find it interesting that over the years, though my handwriting has undergone many changes, my signature at 20 is recognisably my signature now. Even my initials - with which I signed many a memo or instruction to my staff has not greatly varied.

I vote for cursive. I haven't the dexterity to write with a fine italic hand that is my favourite script.

Aside: I once had a medical doctor who wrote beautiful italic. Even his prescription forms. I think he was unique.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

When I was lecturing engineering (up to last year), I very strongly favoured a 'let's talk about it' approach, generating figures, maths and note-form text on the board which students were strongly encouraged to write down. It was well received, but some students struggled to write.

Rather like 'making notes' from a text book or the web, making notes in a lecture does something useful (IME) to most people in terms of improving recall and some kind of nebulous but useful 'possession / ownership' of the info. One had to fight against the 'anyway, it's all on the web' idea - because if it stays on the web and not in your head, there's no way you're going to synthesise anything novel, interesting or just plain useful out of it when you bump into it in context, in RL.

My 9 year old girl appears to have sussed-out 'joined up' writing of a sort on her own, because it looks fancy. It's neat and appears faster than printing, so I guess she's there - not sure her younger sis will be ars*d, but we'll see.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Hebrew does not lend itself to cursive.

Teacher-aide-ing in English classes, though, I have found here and there a student who is in love with English cursive. They will ask me to write their name and they practice it endlessly (as high-school students the world over will get into "grooves")
To them it is like bringing back a lost world.

The only one I have met who can actually do it is self-taught and an art major - not surprisingly.

Digression: As for myself - my Parker Urban and I are inseparable. The nib construction allows me to write equally well in Hebrew or English - ie left to right and right to left and in cursive, capitals or print. Anyone feel like starting a fountain pen thread?

[ 10. October 2014, 05:10: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Handwriting is still explicitly in the new English National Curriculum together with spelling. (And cursive writing as a way of teaching spelling is reasonably well known). There are statutory requirements to teach handwriting in each year from year 1 to 6 (age 5-11)*. The requirement is that pupils should be taught to

quote:
"write legibly, fluently and with increasing speed by ... deciding whether or not to join specific letters."
(Year 5-6 statutory advice).

Cursive is not mentioned but the previous statutory advice would be met by teaching cursive.

* this isn't a surprise. The new NC explicitly lays out KS1 and KS2 words to spell and books to read with nitpicking detail, but becomes exceeding vague for KS3 and KS4 (by which time the students I work with have fallen by the wayside years before).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think I'd rather give children complex art to do though.

I would as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

The way I see it, cursive is harder to read than print and slower than typing.

Well, the harder to read is part of why it helps in development. The brain must use more regions.
But, part of the difficulty in reading might arise from lax standards? My cursive, and printing, is atrocious. Lack of uniformity, consistency and angle. But my calligraphy was quite nice. With the other forms of writing, I was never pushed to develop better skill. With calligraphy, beauty is the point.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm unable to write cursive.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

If you teach handwriting as cursive from the start - so you teach the letter and how to join it to the common joining letters - it helps children form that letter correctly to flow across the page and it also helps to wire the spelling patterns in too and it saves teaching two forms of writing:

quote:
The reasons for teaching cursive writing are particularly relevant to students with handwriting coordination difficulties (developmental dysgraphia) unless their problems are severe when other strategies may need to be implemented. Specialist dyslexia programmes of Gillingham and Stillman (1956); Hickey (1977); Cowdery and Montgomery et al., (1994) all base their remediation on it in a multisensory training system. The reasons are it:
aids left to right movement through words across the page
stops reversals and inversions of letters
induces greater fluency in writing so enables greater speed without loss of legibility
more can be written in the time
speed and fluency can make a difference of a grade at GCSE, A level or in degree programmes
the motor programmes for spelling words, their bases and affixes are stored together (Kuczaj, 1979)
space between letters and between words is orderly and automatic
a more efficient fluent and personal style can be developed
pupils with handwriting coordination difficulties experience less pain and difficulty
legibility of writing is improved
reinforces multisensory learning linking spelling, writing and speaking.
In addition, if taught from the outset it eliminates the need to relearn a whole new set of
motor programmes after the infant stage and there is a more efficient use of movement because of cursive’s flow. source (pdf)

Although John Holt and a few other writers who can print at speed cannot see the point of teaching cursive. But it really does help students who struggle to spell and write.

[ 10. October 2014, 06:38: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I am old enough to remember being taught to write with pen and a well of ink into which the pen was dipped. Fountain pens were banned until Senior School. We were taught cursive and I still write in what is basically a cursive hand, clear and neat. It is strange to note that women of my mother's generation, emerged from their schooling with a hand different to the men. Even now, if I see writing in that hand, I can say that it was done by a woman of a certain age, that now being in their mid-eighties on.

The biro is the enemy of clear and neat handwriting. Even in a hearing, perhaps essentially in a hearing, I take my notes with a pen the better to read them.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I had great difficulty writing in cursive script at school. It brought me into conflict with teachers, made me feel I was irredeemably messy, sloppy and scruffy, and fear that I wouldn't be able to get very far in education or life.

When I was about sixteen I tried writing a little larger, and that made all the difference. I now get compliments on my writing and requests to write joint birthday cards.

I have a strong suspicion that things come out differently depending whether I hand write or type them. Hand written sermons seem to have more structure, more drama and space in them than the verbose flood that comes out of the bubble jet printer.

Hand writing is harder to read, but typing makes a worse script because it's so regular and therefore easy to lose your place when you look away.

I also find fountain pens well worth the extra trouble.

I wonder if it's different for left and right handed people. I write with my right hand and therefore with that part of my left brain that controls it. Does that affect how the thinking of the two halves reaches the paper?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If you teach handwriting as cursive from the start - so you teach the letter and how to join it to the common joining letters - it helps children form that letter correctly to flow across the page and it also helps to wire the spelling patterns in too and it saves teaching two forms of writing:

I couldn't agree more.

But fewer and fewer schools are even teaching joined writing [Frown]

Well, they teach it, but then they let the children choose how to write so, of course, they revert.

My husband can hardly write at all now, he uses the computer so much!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Actually, I find cursive harder to read, even when it is done beautifully.

However, I can write in cursive - but my writing is utterly appalling. so I mostly use a computer. My children can write in cursive, but they also use the computer for most stuff. I am not sure they are losing that much by not writing.

I suppose the priority of writing as a life skill is the reason. When I was growing up, you had to be able to write - even when I started working, reports etc would be hand-written, and typed by a secretary. These days, the necessity write is very substantially reduced in all fields of life. I think that has far bigger implications than just not teaching cursive in schools.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I was taught a Copperplate hand (executed with a dip pen). Style though varied with teacher - one year we had to make all loops and connections rounded, next year, very pointed, to the extent of making loops triangular. However, when you went up to secondary school, handwriting no longer had to conform to a particular model, so I went into a mad adolescent spree of inventing my own script - until eventually captivated by the beauty of Italic. Which is still my basic hand, albeit I sometime have to think for a moment when called upon unexpectedly to sign my name, how exactly it is you do this writing thing. But then I still have that model alphabet in my head from 50 years ago.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

Twanglets are now 11 and 9, they go/went (eldest is in secondary now) to a state primary in an a very not middle class area and learnt joined up writing at the bottom end of KS2 (age 7ish)the school made a big deal of kids getting their "pen licence".
Fountain pens, it seems, are very much becoming a thing of the past, which is very sad.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I for one, if my children are anything like I was, will not miss hands covered in inky blots, not to mention school books. Fountain pens are horrible things; I've never been able to use one without getting ink all over my fingers. YMMV, naturally, but handwriting was the bane of my school life. Despite being given the impression that writing neatly was more important than virtually anything else in life, I still write like a drunk spider.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

There are some pond differences. I was in the USA over the summer and didn't meet any parents whose children learned cursive/joined-up writing. Whereas all children in the UK are learning it (to the best of my knowledge). It's a very big mistake to drop it and I am surprised that it has happened in the USA whose school system(s) are generally pretty good.

K.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I for one, if my children are anything like I was, will not miss hands covered in inky blots, not to mention school books. Fountain pens are horrible things; I've never been able to use one without getting ink all over my fingers. YMMV, naturally, but handwriting was the bane of my school life. Despite being given the impression that writing neatly was more important than virtually anything else in life, I still write like a drunk spider.

You're not a doctor, are you?

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

Our kids are in the French school system although not in France. Learning cursive writing is still a major thing in the French system and they learn the French cursive style of writing from the beginning of primary school.

My daughter learnt to write beautifully in this style but sadly as she has gone into secondary school and has to write much faster to get everything down in class her neatness has diminished! What I find really interesting is that when she writes in English she reverts to printing her letters. She's never been specifically taught to write in English and somehow the cursive script is identified in her mind with writing French!

Our son, who is left handed and not very dextrous sadly has fairly atrocious and difficult to read writing both in French cursive and in English. (If anyone can point me towards online resources for helping left-handers develop good writing please let me know!)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Our kids are in the French school system although not in France. Learning cursive writing is still a major thing in the French system and they learn the French cursive style of writing from the beginning of primary school.

My daughter learnt to write beautifully in this style but sadly as she has gone into secondary school and has to write much faster to get everything down in class her neatness has diminished! What I find really interesting is that when she writes in English she reverts to printing her letters. She's never been specifically taught to write in English and somehow the cursive script is identified in her mind with writing French!

Our son, who is left handed and not very dextrous sadly has fairly atrocious and difficult to read writing both in French cursive and in English. (If anyone can point me towards online resources for helping left-handers develop good writing please let me know!)

Laptop.

Seriously, though, in the real world I can manage perfectly well these days because the need to handwrite anything for reading by anyone else is pretty much limited to greetings cards. It doesn't matter any more.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I think that is true in the UK. However my understanding is that the ability to write well is much more prized in French culture. When I was studying in France in 2006 our class was told that job applications and official letters should be hand written, not word processed. Apparently the dark art of hand writing analysis is still considered a useful tool in assessing people's suitability for jobs in France. See this BBC article from last year.

[ 10. October 2014, 12:08: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think that is true in the UK. However my understanding is that the ability to write well is much more prized in French culture. When I was studying in France in 2006 our class was told that job applications and official letters should be hand written, not word processed. Apparently the dark art of hand writing analysis is still considered a useful tool in assessing people's suitability for jobs in France. See this BBC article from last year.

Not sure. Handwriting is used more in France, I think, but I’m not sure you actually have to be good at it.

I work for lawyers, who still write a lot of things by hand – they usually find it quicker to mark up documents by hand and then get a secretary to type the modifications. Some of them have legible handwriting, and others of them, as the French would say, write comme des cochons*.

*Like pigs. I use this expression because I find it entertaining, although I’ve never understood quite how the pig is supposed to hold the pen in its trotter [Biased]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I think I would find it difficult to take speed notes using only manuscript printing. There are times when it is inappropriate or unacceptable to use a recording device, in which case one has to take notes by hand. Over the years I developed an idiosyncratic shorthand and abbreviations for note-taking. Some of these might be taken down in manuscript letters just as fast as in cursive, but other times it is quicker to write in joined-up (cursive) letters.

My ordinary writing is a mix of cursive and manuscript. As someone else here noted of themselves, I tend to use manuscript caps but cursive letters within words. The exception is my own signature, which has cursivised first and middle initials and an entirely cursive surname -- more of a joined-up scribble, actually.

Oh, and yes I know that some people take a tablet or laptop everywhere and type notes on those devices, but I find the practice cumbersome and space consuming.

[ 10. October 2014, 12:59: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I write daily notes on everything in handwriting (never have called it cursive, perhaps this is a new or regionalism or I use a regionalism). My notes get scanned into PDF files at the office and are available on the computer server when I need to read them. I go to meetings with paper. I tag my pens like migratory birds so I can see where they've migrated to.

I wrote both my MA thesis and PhD dissertation in notebooks by hand, which I still have, with revisions on the facing page, until I gave them to a typist to put into computer files (it was the 1980s, the MA ended up on the mainframe and the PhD on a microcomputer). Except for the minor revisions after the defences (viva voce), they can be read in handwriting. So I am very strongly on the side of handwriting.

There is something to the ritual of buying a new notebook and selecting the pen to use. It is one that I continue with the journals I keep when travelling or canoe tripping. I have no idea how I'd insert the water colour sketches and paintings into a computer file.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

My 10 year old has been taught to write in cursive in Key Stage 2. He loves learning it, he seems to find it very grown up, but he is generally lazy about anything handwritten and would prefer to type his homework.
I was a nurse for almost 20 years and can decipher most doctors' handwriting. I myself write a very untidy cursive script and I'm glad for my students sake that I now do all my university marking on the computer [Smile]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Re speed, according to wikipedia the average person can write 31 wpm with handwriting (not shorthand, but one could type shorthand too) so definitely a fast typist is faster than a fast writer.

I accept though that the beauty of a computer page is nothing compared to the beauty of nicely written letters. I would though, I'm one of those who asked my mom for a fountain pen for Christmas one year so I could play with big swooping curves in my letters. I don't think such writing is bad to teach, but at least in my culture and world, I don't think it's any more useful to teach than any other kind of art. Art in itself is very necessary to teach, mind!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I have a calligraphy 'O' level.

It was great fun to learn [Smile]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, I took calligraphy courses in college, from one of the premier calligraphers of the time!
I find that handwriting, preferably in pencil on lined pads, taps a different strain of creativity in my brain. If the fiction is going well I need the keyboard, so that I can crank thousands of words out per day. But if it is sticky, if it is not going well, then it is helpful to switch to the ancient methods.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

I made some handwritten invitations recently. When doing a practice run, I tried out both printed and joined-up writing, and eventually went with the former: it's easier to be neat! I associate joined-up writing with trying to scribble things down at high speed when taking notes in school, whereas printed writing is more likely to be for something someone else is going to read.

Having to hand-write that many invitations was interesting, because it does show how out of practice I am: it took a long time!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

My mother's generation had penmanship classes every year. My schools never breathed a word about formation of letters after 2nd grade. As a result, we almost all have poor writing - literally I cannot read my own well, sometimes have to give up on a word or phrase. Not surprising my mother said "your generation had better learn typing" long before home computers were invented.

I'm not surprised if schools teach computers instead of cursive. They have only so much time. A weekly half hour penmanship class would do wonders for readability - but how many words do we keyboard vs how many write?

(A friend who studied calligraphy has visually lovely handwriting but I find it hard to read.)

(I gave upon script capital letters while still in school. Never did get the ridiculous capital Q that looks nothing like the letter Q in real life!)

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

If children aren't taught cursive writing, are they taught touch typing in its place?

And what will happen to signatures as required on most important documents? Will that word be relegated to the bottom of SOF posts?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
What will happen to signatures as required on most important documents?

Signing one's name with an X is an ancient and noble tradition.

I never learned to write properly, as my family moved to a new house when I was in the 3rd grade. My class at the old school was just about to learn, and my class at the new school had already learned. I remember having to stay in during noonday recess and copy exercises that the teacher set for me so that I could teach myself.

As a result, my penmanship is a curious mixture of printing, cursive and made-up. But I can read it, and I expect most other people can as well.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

If you're using the internet a lot, especially messaging programmes (eg Facebook chat), you kind of learn to touch-type automatically. I never had formal touch-typing lessons but am pretty reasonable at it from long hours spent on MSN Messenger in the early 00s.

I was taught 'joined-up writing' in primary school (late 90s) and couldn't use a pen until I had good enough handwriting, though not a fountain pen. Now I tend to join up some letters but not others, and my handwriting is pretty untidy but legible. Untidy print is much easier to read than untidy cursive.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
If children aren't taught cursive writing, are they taught touch typing in its place?

I don't think you have to be taught touch typing these days. People use computers so often that they just pick it up.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I for one, if my children are anything like I was, will not miss hands covered in inky blots, not to mention school books. Fountain pens are horrible things; I've never been able to use one without getting ink all over my fingers. YMMV, naturally, but handwriting was the bane of my school life. Despite being given the impression that writing neatly was more important than virtually anything else in life, I still write like a drunk spider.
You're not a doctor, are you?

Karl: Heartily seconded.

Ad Orientem, there are two groups of people known for their poor handwriting in my experience. Doctors and teachers. They also have one thing in common. I can't think of a single other profession that actually needs to write things by hand for information rather than occasionally write them as a piece of art.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Like all Ontario students I was taught the Zaner Bloser method and was bad at the handwriting. I went through until 3rd Year University with poor handwriting, then I found the light. [Angel]

Zaner-Bloser, like its predecessor the Palmer Method is just a simplified form of Spencerian Script, which in itself is not very legible. The lower case b's are terrible and so are the r's.

So I jumped ship to Cursive Italic handwriting, which is semi-cursive and much, much neater as a font. As a result I now write much more clearly and I can even make my handwriting beautiful with a little concentration. I find my hand just does cursive italic much better than it did Zaner-Bloser.

At the same time I discovered gel pens, which have much less friction and make a thicker line, and the two combined are what I use now to write. I'll never go back.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
If children aren't taught cursive writing, are they taught touch typing in its place?

And what will happen to signatures as required on most important documents? Will that word be relegated to the bottom of SOF posts?

In my experience, they are indeed taught touch typing. And knowing cursive enough to sign one's name isn't much. I know people my own age or within a few years of it who don't know any cursive letters besides those in their own name. Heck, I know someone else who doesn't know any cursive. She just does a big flowing letter for her first letter then scribbles of about the right shape for the rest of her first name, and then a line for all but the first letter of her last name.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I suspect cursive will soon become a specialty heirloom skill like knitting or hand embroidery. Something of a niche market. Some people will continue to enjoy learning & using it, and may even be sought after to use their skills either for calligraphy or for taking extensive notes in a setting where a laptop is inappropriate or unworkable. Some may learn and use it as an adjunct to creativity. But it will no longer be seen as a skill that is essential for the entire population.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Twangist:

quote:

Fountain pens, it seems, are very much becoming a thing of the past, which is very sad.

Yes, I suspect you may be right; which is rather a shame as I love them. Writing cursive with a biro seems to me like a satantic punishment for the worst type of offender in hell.

posted by Komensky:

quote:

There are some pond differences.

I hope that is true, but I strongly suspect it is not. I know what CK is saying too, but since my experience with a family friend's children I have enquired a bit and it seems fairly widespread not to bother teaching cursive or 'joined up writing'.

posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

I suspect cursive will soon become a specialty heirloom skill like knitting or hand embroidery. Something of a niche market. Some people will continue to enjoy learning & using it, and may even be sought after to use their skills either for calligraphy or for taking extensive notes in a setting where a laptop is inappropriate or unworkable. Some may learn and use it as an adjunct to creativity. But it will no longer be seen as a skill that is essential for the entire population.

I must confess that I would find this very, very depressing. I'm not the world's most beautiful writer by a long stretch, but I can still appreciate the art. I know I might sound like a fuddy duddy, but I do think the internet and the numerous cheap printing methods have made us careless about what we write and how we communicate and we are taking for granted the whole art of handwriting that when it is gone I do think we will sorely miss and wish we hadn't let it go. I fear that we might be seriously letting down a generation who will stand and accuse us later.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess that I would find this very, very depressing. I'm not the world's most beautiful writer by a long stretch, but I can still appreciate the art. I know I might sound like a fuddy duddy, but I do think the internet and the numerous cheap printing methods have made us careless about what we write and how we communicate and we are taking for granted the whole art of handwriting that when it is gone I do think we will sorely miss and wish we hadn't let it go. I fear that we might be seriously letting down a generation who will stand and accuse us later.

That strikes me as the epitome of a first-world problem.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Here's an example to consider. When the Turks decides to ditch arabic script in favour of Roman for the Turkish language (and there were good reasons to do this) they hadn't anticipated the problems that emerged within a generation where children couldn't read the legal documents of their parents (deeds for houses, wills, etc.) with external help.

K.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The new National Curriculum says:

quote:
Statutory requirements
Writing – handwriting and presentation
Pupils should be taught to:
write legibly, fluently and with increasing speed by:
choosing which shape of a letter to use when given choices and deciding whether or not to join specific letters
choosing the writing implement that is best suited for a task.

Notes and guidance (non-statutory)
Pupils should continue to practise handwriting and be encouraged to increase the speed of it, so that problems with forming letters do not get in the way of their writing down what they want to say. They should be clear about what standard of handwriting is appropriate for a particular task, for example, quick notes or a final handwritten version. They should also be taught to use an unjoined style, for example, for labelling a diagram or data, writing an email address, or for algebra and capital letters, for example, for filling in a form.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Maybe this is just another version of the racist comment 'they all look alike to me', but I find most American/French/Italian handwriting looks as if it has been done by the same person. British people seem to have a wider variety of handwriting styles. When it's done by people who rarely put pen to paper it can look crude but is generally legible; it's usually older people whose jobs involve[d] a lot of writing who can write fluently but not always legibly unless you are familiar with that person's style. I suspect once you have acclimatised your eyes to the more consistent styles of those other countries, when you can read one you can read the rest.
Of course there is a generational aspect to this: older British people tend to have been taught a version of copperplate while younger people often learnt Italic and younger still some sort of roundhand.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I was taught a Copperplate hand (executed with a dip pen). Style though varied with teacher - one year we had to make all loops and connections rounded, next year, very pointed, to the extent of making loops triangular. However, when you went up to secondary school, handwriting no longer had to conform to a particular model, so I went into a mad adolescent spree of inventing my own script - until eventually captivated by the beauty of Italic.

Yes. My handwriting as a small child was atrocious, so much so that when I started at school one of the first things they did was to show me how to write properly and make me practise forming the joined-up letters. I was also lefthanded, but one of the lucky ones in that the consensus was that I should be allowed to get on with it, even if the way I held the pen looked weird, because I was so much faster than if I tried to write with the right hand.

In secondary school I went through quite a lot of experimentation with both calligraphic styles and different colours of inks until the teachers protested. I eventually settled for a modified version of the copperplate I'd been taught. I have an italic fountain pen that I refuse to be parted from.

Individuality in handwriting seems largely to be dying out and there isn't the interest in it that there was, almost certainly because keypads are now more usual than the pen. With modern handwriting it can sometimes be difficult to tell who in a group has written what if it isn't signed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Here's an example to consider. When the Turks decides to ditch arabic script in favour of Roman for the Turkish language (and there were good reasons to do this) they hadn't anticipated the problems that emerged within a generation where children couldn't read the legal documents of their parents (deeds for houses, wills, etc.) with external help.

K.

Not really applicable here, surely since those documents would all at least be typewritten within the last 100 years. Assistance is needed in reading documents older than that, but that is often already the case.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Two of my grandsons attend a bilingual school--English and Mandarin. They are learning to write the Chinese ideographs; I don't know what kind of writing instruction they receive in English.

I suspect that practicing ideographs would make it easier for them to learn to write English clearly.

Moo

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

I'm probably one of the last people in the States to have learned cursive in (a public/state) school as a matter of course—and about the youngest by about ten years to still use it. Nobody I know can read it. Now, part of that is because it's liberal artist cursive—i.e., sends doctors running for cover—but also, I suspect, because most people I know see cursive about as often as they do Carolingian minuscule and fountain pens.

…should mention that I've been known to write letters and signs in Carolingian minuscule sometimes, so people I know do see it, along with whatever vintage Esterbrook I'm using that day. They're all memorable quirks of mine, however, harmless eccentricities that people associate specifically with me, rather than things that are used by normal people for normal purposes.

However, among my grad school colleagues who were almost universally homeschooled or went to Catholic schools, cursive was much more common. I suspect that the use of cursive will become another mark of class, conservatism, and social background more than a way of communication, if it hasn't already turned into such already.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

That strikes me as the epitome of a first-world problem.

In what way?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Nobody I know can read it. Now, part of that is because it's liberal artist cursive—i.e., sends doctors running for cover—but also, I suspect, because most people I know see cursive about as often as they do Carolingian minuscule and fountain pens.

I write cursive, and suspect I might give Ariston a run for his money in the illegibility stakes (mostly because I moved schools in the middle of learning cursive, and the two schools taught two different scripts. SO what I have is a hodge-podge.) But I am completely bemused at the idea that there are people who can't read cursive qua cursive, rather than just bad handwriting.

I find the typical American cursive hand to be rather more ornate than a typical British hand, but the only thing that actually looks odd is the weird square-cornered box that people insist is an uppercase G.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

That strikes me as the epitome of a first-world problem.

In what way?

oh, I think I was just being needlessly prissy. Carry on.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I write 'joined up' and am able to do so neatly and fluently. I can write very quickly when I want to and I think my year 5 teacher was quite touched when I came back some ten years later and informed him I still wrote the way he taught me.

I'm a nurse so writing legibly is still a daily and useful skill for me even though typing is making in-roads.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

As part of my job I have to write accurate and legible contemporaneous notes of interviews I carry out. That has been a big challenge to my handwriting. I don't know how people who can't do joined up writing can write quickly enough to do this.

It's probably why I much prefer interviewing with an interpreter as it allows me a bit of breathing space between question and answer to make sure I can get everything down.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

When it comes to composition, I do think your thought processes change quite considerably depending on whether you're typing or writing longhand.

Typed text is much easier to amend, which means you don't have to thought out the whole text before you start composing it. You can work it out as you go along and go back and modify it afterwards. When writing longhand, you do need to have more or less worked out the whole text in your head before you start committing it to the paper.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am old enough to remember being taught to write with pen and a well of ink into which the pen was dipped. Fountain pens were banned until Senior School. We were taught cursive and I still write in what is basically a cursive hand, clear and neat. It is strange to note that women of my mother's generation, emerged from their schooling with a hand different to the men. Even now, if I see writing in that hand, I can say that it was done by a woman of a certain age, that now being in their mid-eighties on.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
However, among my grad school colleagues who were almost universally homeschooled or went to Catholic schools, cursive was much more common. I suspect that the use of cursive will become another mark of class, conservatism, and social background more than a way of communication, if it hasn't already turned into such already.

Interesting. I was bewildered to see Cliffdweller, on the first page, effectively saying cursive is all done with in the US education system, when the only reason I can write cursive, as a New Zealander a shade under 40, is that I spent a couple of years being tortured by an American homeschooling curriculum. I had assumed that it was belaboured so much because it was considered to be a really important aspect of education 'over there'. It now appears not. I would have to say, despite the fact that it was bloody boring having to practice page after page of letter formation when I was ten, and already knew how to write, it's probably the one thing about that programme that I am actually thankful for. Although my natural writing style is not in the least joined up and slopes very slightly backward, I had to practice this stuff so fucking much that it is still in there, like the ability to ride a bike, and I can just pull it out at need. This was very handy indeed while I was doing an Arts/Humanities degree, the exams for which basically involved sitting down and spewing essays on to paper for three solid hours - often as not followed by a one hour break and another three hours of same. It is a really fast way of writing, I cannot deny. In all my life, I have only ever failed to finish one exam, and I think I owe as much, if not more, to the speed of my writing, than to the speed of my thinking!

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

Typed text is much easier to amend, which means you don't have to thought out the whole text before you start composing it. You can work it out as you go along and go back and modify it afterwards. When writing longhand, you do need to have more or less worked out the whole text in your head before you start committing it to the paper.

Depends on the text. I cannot write verse/poetry via typing. There you need to jot down words or phrases as they occur, park them for possible use, then transpose, cancel, insert, interpolate - the ms ends as a crash of scribbles, as much drawing as writing. For creative prose, it's either: speed of committal to keep pace with the storytelling in your head is the main thing, and I can type as fast as I can write.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I'm probably one of the last people in the States to have learned cursive in (a public/state) school as a matter of course—and about the youngest by about ten years to still use it. Nobody I know can read it. Now, part of that is because it's liberal artist cursive—i.e., sends doctors running for cover—but also, I suspect, because most people I know see cursive about as often as they do Carolingian minuscule and fountain pens.
<snip>

However, among my grad school colleagues who were almost universally homeschooled or went to Catholic schools, cursive was much more common. I suspect that the use of cursive will become another mark of class, conservatism, and social background more than a way of communication, if it hasn't already turned into such already.

Really? That's fascinating. I would have said the exact opposite. I remember a couple years ago when they took cursive out of the New Jersey curriculum and everyone in my family started worrying about how managers and workers in Wal-Mart were going to communicate because so many of the people I know forgot how to print after they learned cursive, so it's either type (which not everyone can afford something to type on and/or the printers with their extortionate ink costs)or cursive.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:

This is amazing/bizarre. I have just this week spent two days doing some research which involved reading the accounts ledgers of some NZ provincial heavyweight of, well, quite some time ago. The books covered from just before 1900 until about 1930, and were mostly filled with a beautiful, regular, and very narrow copperplate type script, but here and there a section was written, in a different pen (wider nib), and a different hand, (less sloping, and slightly more rounded), and my immediate reaction was 'this is his wife writing this bit'* - probably based on Christmas cards received from extremely elderly females relatives, I suspect.

*Well, duh, right? Who else? But he had many employees, some of whom would have been quite capable of taking care of the books. I don't know the answer, I'm relating my gut reaction.

The handwriting of that generation of women here (perhaps ending at WW II, perhaps a few years before) was much rounder than a man;s, particularly in a and o. Wider spacing between uprights in m and n. Not much, but enough to be a giveaway for me. You're probably describing the NZ equivalent. The difference does not seem dependent upon the education the woman had received: state/private; primary/mid high school/ full high school/university. Perhaps they were all taught by women and a tradition was passed on. Boys, even in their early years, may well have had only male teachers. I know that I did.

The cursive we were taught here in the 50s was a simplified copperplate, from which I developed my own style. My father had been taught a traditional copperplate, and his personal style is similar to mine. Yet we shared no teachers.

[ 12. October 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son's writing is exactly like mine, yet I didn't teach him and we shared no teachers.

Our signatures are identical as both our names start with the same letter and we both sign initial/surname. I have signed many a letter 'for' him as he lives abroad and gets me to deal with stuff which comes here.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I was first taught to write joined up at 7ish, through Marion Richardson's system. (I can't find a correct image on line.) It was upright, with joins for all letters, and some unusual open forms of b and p which drew on Carolingian early mediaeval scripts (I think), though her p was that r. When I changed school at 14 I had a rapid correction session with the Head to change to a version called cursive which sloped and derived more from copperplate. At college, I spotted some other girls doing a version of italic and adopted that, along with some fancy e's and d's - now I use a mixture of shapes for these. Except when I was teaching , when I switched to Nelson and then Sassoon (or vice versa - they are very similar, anyway), according to school style decisions.

I find that the way I write - sentence structure and the way my ideas flow - is completely different when I write longhand with a proper fountain pen from the way I write when I type. I think I am probably accessing different parts of my brain, or through different parts of my brain.

[ 12. October 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I've learned cursive in school, but many years of mostly writing physics / maths type things has seen me devolve to a kind of halfway house between cursive and print. Curiously, this seems to be where my son is going from the other side: starting from learning print at school (UK), he's moved on now to some kind of "joined up print".

I don't care too much about all that, to be honest. Whatever works. What does not work for me is however my sons "f", which to my eyes looks practically like a "g". That confuses the heck out of me, because "f" and "g" are not letters that I expect to be confusable (if that makes sense).

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My nephews had different teaching, as the understanding of the relationship between writing and spelling changed the school policy between them. The first started with print and then converted to cursive, the second started joined up from the first. The second has much better writing and actually writes letters to his aunt on occasion.
The idea of starting with a joined up style (and I think the word cursive actually applies to a specific one) is that the child learns letters in groups, and so is less likely to write, for example, thier for their.

Also, by learning to join, the child is less likely to adopt weird letter formation movements that actually slow down writing. Such as starting a d at the top and going round the bottom clockwise. I had to do a lot of correcting by teaching them the movements for a as if it were a c and an i, and d as a c and an l, because our infant school did nothing to establish good habits, and the children thought that "I've always done it that way" was a reasonable position to take.

I don't think they have yet got to the stage where exams will be completed using machines, and three hours is a long time to write with a grip attacking the pen and stupid letter forms. Some of them used to hold their pencil as if they were lefthanded - you know that thing about humans having developed the precision grip between finger and opposable thumb? It's getting undeveloped.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I had to write a note to one of my children's teachers the other day explaining why his not having his PE kit was his fault not mine.

According to him, the teacher couldn't read it. It was in my best cursive. I'll have to use calligraphy next time, which means I need a couple of hours to do it...

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Like all Ontario students I was taught the Zaner Bloser method and was bad at the handwriting.

Ah, there: I didn't know we had our own brand!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

We don't have our own brand, it's a commercial school book pattern the Province uses in its curriculum. The company is based in Ohio.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Right, but the province buys their stuff exclusively, I take it from your post?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Not cursive writing, but not unrelated. I have just seen a woman demonstrating crochet on TV, and not using the usual precision related grip. She was holding the hook as if it were a hammer, only rotated to the left 90 degrees. Excusable if using a very thick difficult yarn (I think I did it while making a bath mat out of old dyed tights), but she was not. Not using precision grip for appropriate tasks I think may be related to not using joined handwriting. Mind you, I've not seen anyone using her grip for writing - not even on a board in a classroom.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It may have been the tightness of the yarn or the thickness of the fabric she was making -- a bath mat needs to be good and thick. One would need to see her crocheting with ordinary wool and a regular hook to really judge.
In fibrist circles we say that anyway that gets you the good result is good. There are at least half a dozen highly efficient methods of knitting (the American throw, the British pick, the Greek around-the-neck), some of startling creativity. I have an acquaintance who is the only crotch knitter I have ever met.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

I am quietly amused that I so rarely ever have to fill out more than a form with a pen these days. (My school teachers in the 80s - probably now gone to their eternal punishment/reward - assured me that as my writing was illegible, I would never amount to very much.)

However, this thread has made me think. So on passing the local stationary shop, I picked up a cheap and cheerful fountain pen. And would you guess, that it's made my writing considerably better in the last week or so of using it? (Aside from the horrible flashbacks I get to exams whenever I pick it up.)

x

AV

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It may have been the tightness of the yarn or the thickness of the fabric she was making -- a bath mat needs to be good and thick. One would need to see her crocheting with ordinary wool and a regular hook to really judge.
In fibrist circles we say that anyway that gets you the good result is good. There are at least half a dozen highly efficient methods of knitting (the American throw, the British pick, the Greek around-the-neck), some of startling creativity. I have an acquaintance who is the only crotch knitter I have ever met.

She wasn't making a bath mat - that was me, and the method was essential. She was using a fairly thick but loosely spun yarn, making a loose flower shape with multiple stitches into the centre. She then switched to a thinner yarn and hook, and did the same motif again, also quite loosely. It looked very awkward, which I don't see in the many methods of knitting (which completely throw me, I can only do the way I have been taught, despite people saying that the continental method is better - or the method with wires held in a special belt). Every knitter I have seen demonstrating has looked thoroughly dextrous in what they were doing.

She was doing an unusual twist method around the feeding finger on the left hand to get the multiples - I experimented before posting, and the palm grip wasn't necessary to work it.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Ahleal V:

quote:

So on passing the local stationary shop, I picked up a cheap and cheerful fountain pen. And would you guess, that it's made my writing considerably better in the last week or so of using it?

I think it does. In school I had to write with a fountain pen, but I quite enjoyed fiddling with it and messing around with the inks etc. I still have an old Parker 51 that smells of the pencil shavings that I - for a reason only God knows - kept in my tin pencil case along with it. Every time I take it out to use I get a whiff of pencil shavings and takes me right back to writing curly capital E's.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
So on passing the local stationary shop, I picked up a cheap and cheerful fountain pen. And would you guess, that it's made my writing considerably better.

Thank goodness the shop was stationary. Had it been in motion, Miss Amanda shudders to think what the effect would have been on your penmanship.

If, on the other hand, you had gone to a stationery shop . . . .

(Miss Amanda will get her blotter.)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I fear that I do not mourn the loss of cursive. Like SPK, I went through the Ontario Public Schools' approach and, like most others in the province, developed an increasingly illegible rounded hand. However, in grade IX, my franco-ontarian English teacher (whose evident love of Shakespeare triumphed over his Saint-Isidore-de-Prescott accent) sat me down and told me that, while my essay was excellent, he was going blind in trying to read it. My handwriting was atrocious. I offered to type my essays in future, as I had by then hit 65wpm in typing class and that was the wave of the future. No, he replied, I needed to learn how to write.

I found a book on italic handwriting, and picked up pens and ink, and set about to relearn how to write. I got into calligraphy and would occasionally turn out a personal letter in uncial and can still produce good work when I want to. My italic survived for many decades, although it has now deteriorated a bit. It is still legible and gets compliments.

Italic is far more functional for the rapid writing and note-taking which is what most of us still need to do, and can handle formal writing for condolence and thank-you notes. It is used in many schools in England and, for a while, was the established form in parts of the NW US (Oregon or Washington, I forget which). I fear that I am one of those who cheer the end of cursive... may it die and become a curiosity, and be replaced by italic.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

There is something to the ritual of buying a new notebook and selecting the pen to use. It is one that I continue with the journals I keep when travelling or canoe tripping.

Me too. There is something very relaxing about the entire process. I've heard neurologists say that taking notes while listening to lectures makes for better focusing because the left brain is kept busy and is less likely to wander of like a bored toddler. I believe cursive works even better at this as it's smoother.

I'm not surprised that today's young people have trouble learning cursive, since from the first they are allowed to hold their pencils clutched in their tiny fists as though they plan to stab their playmates in the arm. The first few times I saw this in a sales clerk, I looked politely away, assuming there was some sort of learning disability going on.

Pens and pencils should be held like this. Anything else deserves a wrist rap with a ruler.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Pens and pencils should be held like this. Anything else deserves a wrist rap with a ruler.

I maintain a "writing lump" on the medial side of my right long finger's distal phalange from such correct use. Miss Taylor had a ruler which rapped the knuckles of those who did not hold the "writing utensil like a Christian".

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I maintain a "writing lump" on the medial side of my right long finger's distal phalange from such correct use.

Me, too, again. Extra credit if it's permanently ink stained.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I fear that I do not mourn the loss of cursive. Like SPK, I went through the Ontario Public Schools' approach and, like most others in the province, developed an increasingly illegible rounded hand. However, in grade IX, my franco-ontarian English teacher (whose evident love of Shakespeare triumphed over his Saint-Isidore-de-Prescott accent) sat me down and told me that, while my essay was excellent, he was going blind in trying to read it. My handwriting was atrocious. I offered to type my essays in future, as I had by then hit 65wpm in typing class and that was the wave of the future. No, he replied, I needed to learn how to write.

I found a book on italic handwriting, and picked up pens and ink, and set about to relearn how to write. I got into calligraphy and would occasionally turn out a personal letter in uncial and can still produce good work when I want to. My italic survived for many decades, although it has now deteriorated a bit. It is still legible and gets compliments.

Italic is far more functional for the rapid writing and note-taking which is what most of us still need to do, and can handle formal writing for condolence and thank-you notes. It is used in many schools in England and, for a while, was the established form in parts of the NW US (Oregon or Washington, I forget which). I fear that I am one of those who cheer the end of cursive... may it die and become a curiosity, and be replaced by italic.

Both, I believe. Those states and a few others use Getty-Dubay, which is a cursive italic model. Combined with a black gel pen, it's the way I write now. I will never, every go back to Ontario's Zaner-Bloser torture with ballpoint pens.

There are three Elders at my church who have the authority of "Clerk of Session" for signing church documents, and I'm one of them. I use a Curisve Italic signature to sign baptismal certificates, including those of my nieces, and the minister and a few others thought I had a beautiful signature.

[ 18. October 2014, 15:31: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I maintain a "writing lump" on the medial side of my right long finger's distal phalange from such correct use.
Me, too, again. Extra credit if it's permanently ink stained.

I used to tell classes that the existence of that lump and the ink stains could have saved your life in the Middle Ages - along with the recitation of the Psalm verse that would prove you were a clerk, and thus subject to church courts...

It is surprisingly often that noticing staff using rubbish grips then reveals that they are lefthanded. One book on how to teach such children had the most appalling instructions which I, sort of ambidextrous*, could not manage, as it was devised to turn the pen to leaning to the right, so it dragged rather than pushed across the paper. Normal grip, mirrored, with pencil, plus lefthanded pen nib later should sort that out. But so many bank and other clerkly staff haven't been taught that properly.

*I could write just about well enough with my left hand to demonstrate to an eight year old how to do it!

[ 18. October 2014, 16:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

My writing is equally appalling regardless of the writing implement, be it finest fountain pen, cheap biro or charred stick. And yes, I do hold it right.

My inclination is to thank God that handwriting is no longer an essential and type whenever possible.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I maintain a "writing lump" on the medial side of my right long finger's distal phalange from such correct use.
Me, too, again. Extra credit if it's permanently ink stained.
I used to tell classes that the existence of that lump and the ink stains could have saved your life in the Middle Ages - along with the recitation of the Psalm verse that would prove you were a clerk, and thus subject to church courts...

How is your spoken / written (Church) Latin then? It won't help you much if you are talking / writing in modern English, whether reciting psalms or protesting your innocence. If you could speak and write (Church) Latin, you would have a fighting chance to survive until you learn the local vernacular. As a clerk, in particular you would have to know the many abbreviations used in writing the Latin to limit the use of "paper".

I also have the writer's lump, of course, but no ink stains. Even the cheapest pens do not leak much these days, and fountain pens are impractical and pretentious. And I do not write any text with a pen, other than making notes. It's all equations and drawings for me. I'm very much a "write, edit and re-edit until it is what you wanted to write" type of person. That style only really works with a computer and text on a screen.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Cliffdweller:

quote:

That strikes me as the epitome of a first-world problem.

In what way?

It certainly strikes me that way, having spent years teaching at a university in a developing country. (I retired from that only a year or so ago.)

99% of the students would not have seen a computer, let alone used one, before coming to university. And all school and university examinations required a handwritten script, written against a tough deadline (2 or 3 hours depending on the level).

So there was a premium on fast and legible handwriting, as there was in my own school and university student days (admittedly a few decades ago, but in Australia and UK)

Handwriting is still my preferred mode for note taking as my typing is fast but inaccurate and it's much easier to carry a small writing pad (i.e a notebook) than a computer to places in the field.

In fact, I am astonished to learn from this thread that there are places where handwriting is not taught as a matter of course in primary school.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I challenge IngoB's assertion:

quote:
Even the cheapest pens do not leak much these days, and fountain pens are impractical and pretentious.

Ballpoint pens do leak, and the price range seems to have no real impact, although the manufacturer will. Fountain pens are extraordinarily practical for fast legible writing, as they require little or no pressure on the paper to write. As for their pretentiousness, as an Anglican obviously I am unable to make any such judgement.

As a possible tangent, one of my acquaintances was given a fountain pen (medium-nib aurora, monogrammed GBM) by Bl. Paul VI which he tells me he will now keep handy as a possible secondary relic. While Montegrappa has turned out papal millennium and Our Lady of Guadelupe pens (at healthy prices, a portion of which goes to a papal charity dealing with Roman street children), Benedict XVI used middle-range Mont Blancs (apparently thriftily buying large bottles of ink and decanting them into small ones) and Meisterstucks. St J2P2 used the same fountain pen for most of his cardinalatial and papal life, and wrote his books in longhand with the pen, reportedly an Arthus Bakelite.

Perhaps one of our more up-to-date Tiber-connected shipmates might know what pen is used by the current pontiff?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Ingo:

quote:

....fountain pens are impractical and pretentious.

Says he who doesn't use them nor one who cares to write. I guess it would depend on your view of pretention, but all those I know who use them do so because they value writing and like to use something that makes that activity pleasurable - it has nothing to do with being pretentious, although I'm sure you could argue the case for a diamond encrusted solid gold pen that's as heavy as a ship anchor - but funnily enough, I haven't seen too many of them.

As a society though we don't seem to value the written word very much at all and much of what we leave society will be on an old, outdated, corrupted and rusted hard drive somewhere that nobody can access anymore or writing with a biro that faded into an unreadable state a mere twenty-five years after the pen touched the paper.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Ball-point pens are the writing instruments of the Devil Himself. The ink is a combination of alcohol and paste that (a) stinks and (b) requires enormous pressure to write. I [Mad]

it.

Gel pen ink, on the other hand, is a pigment suspended in a water-based gel. It is as smooth to write with as anything and makes a wonderful dark, thick line. It's not a fountain pen, but it's a good halfway house for everyday pens. I have met several people who say they use gel pens and will never go back to ballpoint.

I would like to purchase an italic-nib fountain pen in the near future once some job prospects work out.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I had a Parker fine italic which saw me from lower sixth through university and a couple of decades of personal writing thereafter. I also had a stable of calligraphy pens and nibs - those didn't last so well on account of the heavier ink. I'm afraid the only functional fountain pens I have currently are a couple of Mont Blanc rip-offs I bought in HK. But I can never pass a shop selling high end fountain pens without going up to the glass whimpering and scrabbling.

Writing with a good pen - a really good pen, the right shape and heft, with a smooth glow and a resilient nib - is a sensual pleasure.

[ 22. October 2014, 15:44: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Fountain pen is still the legal requirement for signing a marriage schedule, at least in this neck of the woods. I keep a very nice one just for that purpose and most of the couples and their witnesses have never used one before! My first question before I let anyone loose on the document is "Is anyone left handed?" [Yipee]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I challenge IngoB's assertion:
quote:
Even the cheapest pens do not leak much these days, and fountain pens are impractical and pretentious.
Ballpoint pens do leak, and the price range seems to have no real impact, although the manufacturer will. Fountain pens are extraordinarily practical for fast legible writing, as they require little or no pressure on the paper to write. As for their pretentiousness, as an Anglican obviously I am unable to make any such judgement.

I have used ballpoints about 100 times as much as fountain pens in my life, but the number of times I've had ink everywhere as a result of a fountain pen malfunction is many, many times more than I have with any ballpoint. As for "fast legible", as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing. Fast or legible. Choose one.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

When I was at school everyone had a fountain pen. Writing with one is a joy compared to a ballpoint. Plus it was always fun to flick ink on the shirt of the person sitting infront of me. [Devil]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When I was at school everyone had a fountain pen. Writing with one is a joy compared to a ballpoint. Plus it was always fun to flick ink on the shirt of the person sitting infront of me.

There was no need with me. My fingertips were permanently inkstained, as quite often was the whole of my hand from index finger to thumb. Messy things.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I learned cursive in school - attended elementary school in the early 1990s in the US. We also learned typing.

At work here in the UK I am one of the only people who can touch-type, including trainees who graduated from university within the past year. The only other people who can are a mid-30s person also educated in the US and a 50-something PA.

So if they are not teaching cursive OR touch typing in schools in the UK, then what on Earth are they teaching?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I learned cursive in school - attended elementary school in the early 1990s in the US. We also learned typing.

At work here in the UK I am one of the only people who can touch-type, including trainees who graduated from university within the past year. The only other people who can are a mid-30s person also educated in the US and a 50-something PA.

So if they are not teaching cursive OR touch typing in schools in the UK, then what on Earth are they teaching?

How to survive Death by Powerpoint. It's a return to Spartan principles.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Says he who doesn't use them nor one who cares to write.

I write and draw considerably more by hand than most people, thanks to my job, I bet. It just happens to be mostly maths and brief notes rather than "novels". There's a reason why I have maintained my writer's lump on the middle finger...

And I have owned, and still own, and used fountain pens. Including one or two relatively expensive ones (in the £100 range). They are simply not particularly good writing implements in my experience. They require considerably more focus on the act of writing itself, and considerable more maintenance and care. But I use writing in my work, I don't write for writing's sake.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0