The Lost Virtue of Cursive | Hacker News Reader

The Lost Virtue of Cursive

newyorker.com

38 pointssamclemens70 comments

I think some of the lamentation about losing cursive romanticizes everything a bit. When people think of cursive, they think of beautiful, Declaration of Independence-like script.

I do my family genealogy, which involves reading lots of censuses and historical documents. For every document with beautiful handwriting, there are hundreds that look like scribbles and that take me a long time to figure out what they were writing. And I learned cursive in school. When I find a document with printed handwriting, I want to go back in time and personally thank the writer.

There is a difference between what some people imagine cursive to be, and what it is in practice. People will always have bad handwriting, and bad printing is easier to read than bad cursive.

See also: Doctor's handwriting

Another good resource to get a feeling for bad cursive is interpreting documents for Family Search. https://familysearch.org/indexing/projects

They have excellent desktop apps and systems for volunteers I was impressed but had to throw in the towel on anything but beginner level work.

When I was in high school, at some point I realized that if I wrote (printed) my notes too fast, I had a lot of trouble reading them later on.

Since then I switched to cursive, and for the most part stuck with it. I doubt others would have an easy time reading my fast cursive (doctor-style scribbles) but at least words have a "shape" I can easily recognize, even if letters are completely deformed.

Meanwhile, my chickenscratch print took so much effort to decipher that it was easier to just look up the info elsewhere.

I find even the Declaration of Independence is difficult to read - and I, too, learned cursive in school. Heck, I've even written essays in cursive about the declaration and the constitution!

The main thing with the Declaration and Constitution is that we know what they say - we've seen it in print, in books, and so on. When we go to read the cursive, we know what to expect.

That aspect is lacking in other documents. For old documents, even the beautiful writing takes some time to decifer. I can only imagine the effort in piecing together the scribbles.

I generally liken the lamentating folks to the folks that think that we should go back to teaching "Reading, writing, and 'rithmatic" in schools because back in the day, that's how it was done and (insert rosy thing about the past here).

I think the real observation here is not so much that print is more legible than cursive, but rather that most people actually suck at handwriting. That can be solved in two ways: get them to practice it with an aim towards improving legibility (good luck), or tell them to give up and just type everything (easier).

People who adhere to a particular form, whether it's a form of print or cursive, and do it consistently and with superior execution, have very legible handwriting.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/who-needs-handwriting/ This podcast I believe is pretty objective. Sets up some of the virtues of handwriting, discusses that cursive is faster than print, but shorthand is even faster, and that faster isn't very helpful, so slower is maybe better because it forces reflection, and idea solidification.

personally the argument, our kids can't read the declaration of independence and other historical documents, is just silly. All of these documents are available in a hundred different languages, rendered in any font your heart desires. if our dystopian future hinges on apparently having the original declaration of independence in hand, and the issue is that we are unable to read it because we no longer know cursive, then there are worse things going on. Namely that we are apparently living in a Michael Bay -esque ridiculous coincidence universe.

ahhh watch out for that giant robot car whose ex-con mechanic with a heart of gold used to be an ex cia agent who is the only one who can save us. and his ex-wife's boss is the leader of the bad guys, but maybe is a good guy?

AFAIK, cursive is still being taught at (most) schools here in Germany, although most of my peers had abandoned it for print lettering by grade 10.

Actually, when we had out introductory lecture for my university course, the prof strongly urged us to take notes on paper rather than digitally, as the added sensory input of the pen aids the memory. I followed his advice, though probably more because I find paper-based notetaking to be much more efficient than taking notes with a keyboard. (You're much more flexible when writing on paper.)

My son just graduated and the same thing is true: he's pretty much abandoned it. He's also stopped using Füllhalter (fountain pens) for which joined-up letters make more sense.

I have tried various electronic techniques over the years and agree that I take much more useful notes by hand.

I find fountain pens so much nicer to write with than ballpoints. If I need to write anything longer than a sentence, I would always choose the fountain pen - it's much gentler on your hand, so you don't tire as quickly, and you have a finer degree of control, so your handwriting becomes more legible.

Now I'm wanting to draw with one - I very much understand the hand fatigue as I get it as well... Along with tennis elbow. Different pens and paintbrushes have different fatigue rates.

For handwriting, how long did it take you to adjust to it? Is the grip much different?

it's not just that the grip is different but you draw (pull) the pen rather than push (pushing, especially with the stiff nibs, causes a skip). You grip a biro much more firmly so that it doesn't move around as you push it. I believe this is why the fountain pen doesn't fatigue you as much.

The large issue with cursive is the tools we use.

Back when 'Cursive' was the norm the pens were much different.

I find it harder to write Cursive with a ballpoint vs a fountain/dip/etc pen.

Cursive is easier to make legible when you can vary line thickness.

For cursive, the winner is a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil. It doesn't need much pressure, and it doesn't make a blob if you stop.

Maybe I am a hold out but I write a lot by hand in my day to day work. I take notes at meetings, when reading documents, and even writing notes to my self. I am also dyslexic. I find that cursive is easier for me to read and write. My print handwriting is sloppy and hard for most people to read. However, my cursive is easier to read. I think this is due to the extra focus that I take when writing in cursive.

Through university, I took all my notes and did all of my hand work, civil engineering major, by hand. I never wanted to carry a laptop with me because it was just extra weight to haul around. Also, to be fair, taking math heavy notes on a laptop would have been hell. Affordable touchscreens/tablets were just coming to market when I was in grad school so...

In the professional world, I run into a lot of people that are amazed I write in cursive. This is probably due to so many engineers using drafting lettering out of conditioning.

I miss it as much as I miss writing in Graffiti script on palm OS in the mid 90s. In other words, not much.

If all your PDA (smart phone without the phone, essentially) had is what now counts as a modestly low performance microcontroller, your OCR needs help, so Graffiti had glyphs like a single simple right angle for a letter T, an F is that right angle flipped, etc.

There exists a Graffiti keyboard input for Android, just search for it. I have not used it.

I was brought up in the era of all engineers will use block caps on blueprints and all scientists will use readable block caps in lab notebooks, so the kids were put in tracks by middle school therefore I've not written cursive since 6th grade. Possibly the "future english lit" track students continued to use cursive, I donno.

For those who don't know, technical lettering is pretty standardized:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_lettering

> It is used to describe, or provide detailed specifications for, an object. With the goals of legibility and uniformity, styles are standardized and lettering ability has little relationship to normal writing ability.

I use "Graffiti Pro for Android" (Access Co,. LTD). I prefer it to using the onscreen keyboard, I used my Palm Vx extensively, so I got very good with Graffiti. I like it; however, I don't know if I would use it if I did not already know Graffiti. Every so often a character does not register the first time; but, it's still quicker for me than my fat thumbs on a keyboard.

Cursive? Meh. Go italic:

https://www.amazon.com/Italic-Way-Beautiful-Handwriting-Call...

(Recently back in print!!)

I would have liked to see a link to Italic handwriting : /

Scroll down and you'll find Italic, Chancery Italic, and Flourished Italic here: https://imgur.com/a/GezeK

I appreciate it, but without captions or legends, I don't know which is which.

While not all of them do, the images I was referring to include the names at the top. Here are some direct links:

Italic: https://i.imgur.com/ntF1pIU.jpg

Flourished Italic: https://i.imgur.com/d9bQHrn.jpg

Chancery Italic: https://i.imgur.com/oVUy0dv.jpg

This is italic handwriting (written at a pretty fast pace, not calligraphy): https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3668/12593312083_88ad654b4a_k....

This is italic in a more calligraphic style https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3819/11340694864_3b539d93c4_k....

And for comparison, this is Spencerian: https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1453/24524870000_ae9c389ec4_k....

...or, "A few traditions whose passing I lament".

In all honesty, though, I do a fair bit of calligraphy (I know, that's not necessarily cursive) and it can be a very soothing and rewarding experience. I suspect it has to do with using a bit of both halves of the brain, whereas keyboarding is likely more mechanical.

It does indeed get you to some sort of zen state... it is very relaxing

Speediness is an curious advantage, because to the contrary I only ever use handwriting when I want to deliberate and think as slowly as I write (doing math, writing short fiction, expanding a dense technical idea to a colleague).

From that perspective cursive is a vice.

The hate on cursive seems a peculiar American thing - as is the "it's slower to write" mantra (when you write it correctly your pen moves less vertically - the slower axis - so it's actually significantly faster)

Do schools just suck at teaching it?

US cursive looks rather different from the cursive taught in the rest of the world; its dissimilarities with printed words makes it more of a specialized task to read and write. It's much more decorative than fast, IMO.

For example: US cursive 'Q' looks like the number 2. 'Z' is the number 2 with another loop below the line. 'F' and 'T' look like letters you'd see in an illustrated manuscript as the leading letter.

That... sounds horrific.

Yup. To second Tropo below - the cursive I was taught is the D'Nealian Script:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive#/media/File:Cursive.sv...

It is not fast, but it does look pretty when written with a steady and constant hand.

Yes.

It's teacher-by-teacher of course, not part of testing, and without defects being pointed out in later years. Instructional materials show examples but don't bother to explain which aspects of letter form actually matter.

For example, it is important to distinguish points, humps, and loops. This has to be reliable. Many other things are not so important, but you might not guess which ones just from looking at examples.

Also, a fine-point mechanical pencil is a must. Ball-point pens need too much pressure and normally the tip has a bit of wiggle to it. Other kinds of pens leave ink blobs when you stop. Old-style pencils get too wide as they wear down.

This sounds... crazy. I learned cursive in the UK as a young child with a ball-point and it made very little difference to writing.

Yeesh, no wonder the US has such a hate-on for it.

You probably used UK-style joined-up writing. Americans tend to use something like D'Nealian cursive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian

It takes time to correct a student's mistakes. If this isn't done, poor legibility becomes a habit. Tracing oversized letters isn't going to lead to quality cursive.

Yes, of course you can use a ball-point, but typical cheap American ones have a wobbly tip (flexible body, flexible ink tube, and a loose fit between them) and require lots of pressure. Maybe you have nice ones in the UK.

Students here would normally learn with a traditional wooden pencil. This works well if you constantly sharpen it.

Yeah, UK joined-up is basically a simplified classical English Round Hand: http://www.cursivewriting.org/images/JoinitC1alpha.jpg

It's... not hard, easy to learn, and looks very nice. It also allows you to progress to the (imo) nicer roundhand style if you really want fancy calligraphy.

I write cursive on the whiteboard at work. It surprises some to see this ancient practice.

Cursive on the whiteboard sounds very intriguing. What does it look like and does anyone ever have any trouble reading it?

My understanding is that many teachers still use cursive on whiteboards and chalk boards

Ability to write in cursive will actually help on the tablets with pen, IPad Pro and Surface. I am using more and more cursive than my usual writing when taking notes on these devices using a pen.

My niece and nephew were never taught to read or write cursive and as such my sister reads to them letters my mom wrote them for the holidays. She also read old letters from her own grandmother and grandfather.

So its effectively relegated to the dust bin of history for many people. Are there apps you can use on your phone to photograph and translate it back?

If the reasoning behind learning Cursive script is speed of writing - why not go all the way and teach shorthand?

Everyone is saying in the comments "I also learned cursive". Are there schools where you do not learn that? In France (and from I can tell - everywhere in Europe) this is the only writing possible. Adults also write in cursive by default.

Cursive is awful, with no practical redeeming values. The only reason to learn cursive is if you are a historian who has to delve into primary sources where it was used. If you want to fuss with it, fine, but like calligraphy, it should be an art form, rather than something we waste time teaching universally.

It'd be better if everyone learned mechanical drafting lettering[1]. It's not particularly difficult, and it is clear and unambiguous and everyone can read it with ease.

[1] http://rvhs-denyer.com/web-back/cad/units&tasks/led-ch-5-let...

> Cursive is awful, with no practical redeeming values.

Being able to write quickly seems pretty redeeming.

Note too that there are different forms of cursive. I'd agree that the Palmer method is awful (seriously, the letterforms are grotesque), but Italic cursive (e.g. http://s226.photobucket.com/user/caliken_2007/media/zapf5601...) is beautiful.

> Being able to write quickly seems pretty redeeming.

Then use a keyboard.

Which you carry everywhere with you?

> Cursive is awful, with no practical redeeming values.

I've not seen a study, but the classic advantage of cursive that is still brought up today is that it is faster than print.

Personally for fun and potential faster writing I've just started learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencerian_script. My handwriting is awful (both print and cursive) so unfortunately I won't be a good test case on whether it is easier to write fast legible cursive than print unless I also go relearn print.

My son has attention issues and his handwriting is atrocious. Strays off the lines, regularly forgets letters and punctuation, lots of errors.

We've discovered that making him write his homework in cursive slows his mental processes down enough that his accuracy and concentration are easily an order of magnitude higher than if he was printing.

Cursive has a highly practical value for some people.

Don Knuth has said that he prefers writing on paper instead of writing on the computer because he types much faster than he thinks; handwriting is closer to the speed of his thoughts.

Cursive is a compromise between speed and readability when writing with a pen. I'd be very surprised to see someone write drafting lettering at the speed of cursive.

(There's a case to be made for Pitman shorthand, but it was never popular since it can't be read without training either)

It feels rather weird that cursive might be dying out; while I never had "copperplate" handwriting and always struggled a bit as a left-hander, I did all my exams in cursive and I still find it encourages a slightly different mode of thinking from typing.

As someone into calligraphy, I agree entirely. People claim it is faster to write - but there is no way I can write faster than I can type and in the past 12 years, I've had zero reason to write at all, outside of practicing calligraphy (Chancery Italic to be specific).

If the only supporting argument is cursive is "faster" and you must write, not type, then you will absolutely not beat shorthand. Learn Gregg shorthand [1], not cursive. If you want your handwriting to "look nice", treat it as an art form, because that is what you are doing when aesthetics supercedes practicality.

[0] https://calligraphyalaphbets.imgur.com/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_shorthand

Comparing shorthand and regular writing is a disingenuous way to make an argument, to say the least.

It's like comparing a text file with the same file, but compressed in some obscure format, like ACE. You'll spend orders of magnitude more time finding a single person who can read your shorthand than learning it and writing whatever it was that needed to be written.

The advantage of normal writing (whether cursive or hybrid cursive/print) is that, in theory, barring extreme cases, everyone can read it or at least guess the context from the words.

The Gregg shorthand you linked looks like a bunch of scribbles and might as well be Chinese glyphs or Hebrew to a layman.

If the goal is to write notes for personal use, I think that time's long gone and most information is available online and can be easily referenced in seconds with search queries (unlike a hand written notebook, where you must store a mental index of the contents).

> If you want your handwriting to "look nice", treat it as an art form, because that is what you are doing when aesthetics supercedes practicality.

It doesn't need to "look nice", just legible enough to convey information or a part information, from which the rest can be inferred by context.

Cursive is pitifully slow compared to modern writing systems. The basic Teeline shorthand alphabet can be learned very quickly; with practice, speeds of over 100wpm are easily achievable.

Cursive is, quite simply, obsolete. It's slower than shorthand or typing and less legible than print. It is enormously time-consuming to learn and can cause a great deal of confusion for children who are already struggling with print letterforms.

Teach typing, teach shorthand, teach stenography, but stop wasting classroom time with an archaic writing system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeline_Shorthand

I guess if everyone was taught shorthand like everyone is taught regular writing that might work out.

However, in the current world if you want other people to read your writing either good cursive or good print are your best bets.

If you just want to write for yourself, do whatever you want.

> Cursive is awful, with no practical redeeming values.

I guess you never learnt what it was for. Your statement is like saying "functional programing is awful, with no practical redeeming value" (or microservices, or goto). It has a role that is quite useful for some purposes. Apparently you don't have the need.

It's unfortunate that your opinion is being downvoted and refuted with other's opinions.

It's always fun to see the way people react when you attack one of their sacred cows.

In my particular case above, I have concrete evidence it has value. Not really an opinion at all.

Teachers and therapists have independently confirmed it works for my son's case.

I appreciate your specific comment with evidence, but it originally was unnecessarily hostile. I see you've edited it to remove that.

Most people replying here are not citing specific examples - just spouting their anecdotes.

If one chooses that as a username, I'd figure it was hostile to begin with.

Cursive is slower to write and harder to read. Also, people outside the examination and testing system don't used handwriting anymore (except for squiggling their signatures occasionally!)

Although I myself was taught 'joined up' handwriting at school I have chipped away at it over the years to create a more convenient mix of print and cursive.

e.g. the tailed letters ygjq(f) slow down writing considerably if you join them up. Where the nib ends on the right hand side of the letter (i.e. in the direction of the flow of text) then joining is fast e.g. 'c','e'

I am teaching my children cursive. It should be learned and used. Stuff that in your core curriculum.

Why? Because you miss it?

When I was in second grade (1992) the teacher told us if we didn't learn cursive, we'd never be able to keep up taking notes in college classes. I told her by the time we were in college we'd have computers we could take to class with us.

She scoffed at me.

I definitely got a laptop as a high school graduation gift.

In your face, second-grade-teacher-whose-name-i-dont-remember

I went to college before laptops were affordable to college students, so all of my notes were still on paper. I found that I had to write them in manuscript if I wanted to be able to read them later, plus it was faster than writing the cursive anyway.

It always seemed to me that cursive was optimized for quill or fountain pens and was kind of counterproductive if you had a pencil or a ballpoint pen. I found it far too easy for words to devolve into just a bunch of loops with cursive.

> It always seemed to me that cursive was optimized for quill or fountain pens and was kind of counterproductive if you had a pencil or a ballpoint pen.

That's true of the Palmer method and related cursives most American students learn. The letterforms which are so odd with a ballpoint pen actually derive from sensible hand-, wrist- and arm-movements when using a fountain pen.

I use a variant of Getty-Dubay Italic (http://www.handwritingsuccess.com/), which is eminently readable and quite quick to write.

>>By the time that I had covered two sides of a small piece of stationery, my letters tended to get sloppier, and my right hand was cramping.

>It always seemed to me that cursive was optimized for quill or fountain pens

Definitely agree, cursive felt only marginally nicer to use than printing until I used a fountain pen; with one, it is faster and more physically comfortable (in addition to being more fun and prettier). Anyone here who is still attached to cursive is strongly recommended to buy a cheap fountain pen.

Any brand preference? The varieties of "cheap" are many.

A $25 Lamy Safari has done well for me for the last 4 years.

Start with the Lamy or Pelikan pens that are mandatory in German schools. They have very stiff nibs which won't break if you apply the same pressure you're used to with a byro/ball point or pencil. You can get them in the US. There are fun ones made of wood with brightly colored caps and ends.

Once you are used to them you can use a more expensive (or cheapo) pen with a softer nib. That well let you write both more clearly and much much faster.

Note that a lot of fancy fountain pens are (IMHO) way too heavy and clunky for everyday writing.

I can take notes with a fountain pen way faster than with a byro and the resulting ones are more legible (I have dreadful handwriting). Also I can write this way for hours without cramping which I can't say about a byro since those require more pressure and use push strokes.

If I don't have a fountain pen I have some Stabilo gel pens that are the least crappy alternative. The fountain pen is pretty well adapted to handwriting. I prefer to type but there are many cases where that is an inferior option.

Its an old scam going back to the earliest typewriter days.

A generation before you, I distinctly remember being told I'd have to turn in cursive term papers... Back in reality my dad had some old post war term papers that were typed... Its been a scam since at least the 50s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com