From: Dr. Ruth I. Gordon <Druthgo>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:15:29 -0700

Ms Smith has asked a very important question about a subject too often not discussed: type face in books for children (and non-children, too, when you consider the printed page and the reader). Of course, I do have my own private self-interest in this since my doctorate is in the field of history of printing, history of books, and publishing. As a general rule, the page must be readable, especially so for newer readers. Caslon in a lovely type and size, leading, and generous white space all add to its lucidity. When a designer controls a book and uses "dazzling" types (I believe North-South did this for a time--pointy, sharp, san serifs, that were so delicate as to be uncomfortable) to create an effect, the sense of the printed word can easily become lost because it is so uncomfortable to scan and then read. I also believe that a justified margin, when possible, is easier for the reader than the "ragged" margin. A solid, widely leaded, medium heavy black forming a block on a page or opening would be ideal. Paper quality is another matter. Nothing should ever be lost in the gutter.

In the newest Pullman book, "Count Karlstein" (Knopf, 1998--U.S.), the designer has done something quite delightful and, perhaps, subtle to the untrained eye. He/she has changed the font so that each first person narrator has his/her own font. This is a case where the designer should be congratulated. I wonder if the British 1982 first edition did the same?

Recently, there have been some fict-nf picture books in which the text is printed in a circular (or more accurately, elliptical) way and if it's hard for an experience reader to grab, what can it be for a less experienced one?

Those of us who have had the pleasure of casting type, even trying to design it, making paper, and printing with a hand press, never look at a book in the same way again. The aesthetics of the book should always add to--not distract from--the text. I am sure we can all cite to books in which the designer has really ruined the textual concept. Designers like the latter always remind me of the person who sings the "S.S.B." at baseball games and who goes on and on. (I've timed some of them.) I mumble to my seat mate, "Oh come on, we came to see baseball, not hear you..."(and other mumbles). Anyone who has the chance to set type, design a pamphlet or poster, and print it on a hand press should take advantage of the opportunity. There was a time when my own library school had a printing shop and an old Albion hand press and many cases of lovely type
(U.C. Old Style, designed, I believe, by Fred Goudy), but since it has become a school of management and information science, the book arts have been scrapped--alas.

I am NOT sorry to have taken so much time and to have rambled. But I know that Ms. Smith's question is one that wants a great deal of pondering. By the way, when I taught years and years ago, I had the youngsters design and build a hand press and we begged several cases of type from a printer who was going out of business. A few of the seventh graders (especially what we now recognize as dyslextic ones) actually learned to read when they had physical contact with type as they set it by hand.

And..I always try to write of the physical book in my reviews when it is important for the object at hand.

 Grandma

================="You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Fri 25 Sep 1998 07:15:29 PM CDT