Cursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back italic | Hacker News Reader

Cursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back italic

nytimes.com

116 pointssethg60 comments

I was quite awful at cursive handwriting in school, and as soon as it wasn't required, I switched back to block lettering... something similar to this article (in-air joins) when I need to write faster.

Cursive has always struck me as being illegible and archaic. If we're going to appreciate hand-written text, I'd much rather advocate calligraphy and/or explorations of old-style fountain pen writing. What I was taught as a kid ("new"-style cursive text) just seems like an unnecessary distraction.

Granted, I'd much rather type. Handwriting really tires out my wrist.

Good for you! I also prefer typing. As far as handwriting goes, I've unconsciously developed a semi-joined up style rather like that mentioned in the article. No lessons required.

Even though I couldn't be bothered with it, I had always assumed that cursive handwriting must have some advantage. But it has none. It is both slower to write and difficult to read.

Generations of children have been hobbled by a prissy, static tradition, inherited from brass engraving.

It does have advantages, just not for users. The advantage is providing a way to control pupils: a student's work will not be accepted unless it is written in the correct way.

The implicit message is clear: you must conform to our pointless strictures, or you will not be accepted (human beings experience the rejection of their work as a rejection of their selves, even when this is irrational). The pointlessness of "joined-up" handwriting (as it is referred to in the UK) is part of its utility to the system, as it demonstrates that conformity is the ultimate requirement, not practicality.

Oh, come on. Not everything done on schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check.

Teaching the students to respect their teachers is useful and without doubt it's taught in schools. It helps students to absorb the knowledge from their teachers without the teacher having to prove every detail, which in turn helps more to be taught. (Some things really don't need a proof until you're working in much more detail. Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true.)

Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it.

I admit that my tongue was planted rather firmly in my cheek when I made my remarks. However, neither your assertion that "Not everything done on [sic] schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check" nor the claim that there are more effective ways to indoctrinate pupils are actually arguments against my conclusions.

My recommendation in this regard would be "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". It avoids having to explain why one would want to teach joined-up handwriting, and has the added effect of doing down the school system—something that will almost always make one popular here.

"Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true."

While most people don't need a rigorous proof that would take Russell and Whitehead hundreds of dense pages to reach that point, even a small child has to have enough of an intuitive understanding of how addition works for 2 + 2 = 4 to be meaningful to them. That's why we do exercises with pennies and talk about "if you have 2 cookies and I give you two more cookies" to drive the point home.

"Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it."

You argue as if cursive writing is the sole means by which schools teach children to accept arbitrary, irrational authority. I don't think it's a "conspiracy" per se, just part of how the system works: when the system is characterized by regimentation and submission to arbitrary authority, it's a lot easier for useless things like cursive to be taught.

"The implicit message is clear: you must conform to our pointless strictures, or you will not be accepted."

So THAT'S why they made us shave our heads and break rocks 5 hours a day in middle school.

I think cursive handwriting is faster when mastered to the degree that a literate person in the pre-typewriter, pre-computer age would master it, but in this day and age, it is probably as hard to find a master of cursive writing as it is to find a master of tracking. We're hobbyists by comparison, and hobbyist-level cursive writing is worthless.

Cursive's death is widely accepted now. Even after cursive became obsolete, there was a time when people really aspired to have a beautiful, flowing hand. No more. My girlfriend's daughter writes a beautiful, extremely slow cursive script for her homework assignments and illegible chicken scratch for all her practical purposes. She's a serious and studious kid, but she already realizes (five years earlier than I did) that cursive script will never have any practical value for her.

It is both slower to write and difficult to read.

Not for me. My cursive hand is much faster than my print hand. In fact, I hate it when I am asked to print, because it slows me down so much. (by a factor of 3 at least.)

At a private grade school I often had to write a sentence 500 times when I did something wrong... I found cursive was much faster, I tried both, my peers are the ones that put me onto cursive to make the writing go faster.

Sounds bad. Where are you from and when?

I write in cursive at least twice as fast as I can print, and it's more legible than my printing is at even a moderate speed. The loops aren't just there to frustrate the students, they eliminate the need to pick up the pen or even slow down as much as sharp angles force you to. I don't really have problems reading neatly written cursive either.

The only time I ever print is for other people's benefit. My handwritten notes are at least 95% cursive.

It should be noted that "joined-up" writing, as the Brits put it, is much more attractive when using a fountain pen. You don't have to go full-on Palmer (in fact I recommend against it; capital Q and both Zs are particularly obtuse), but some form of joining letters seems to be natural.

I can't recommend this enough. About three years ago, I bought Dubay and Getty's book to improve my handwriting--and it worked, with just a few hours of drills over a couple weeks.

Some notes:

1. It's subtle, but some of the printed letters are formed differently than most Americans were taught in school. Look how the letters t, q, x, e, and E are made. The italic form of the letters looks better and feels more natural to write. (The italic number 5 was especially weird to me, but now it's impossible for me to write it the "old way.")

2. The article talks about this, but it bears repeating: the letters are formed the same whether you are printing or writing cursive. So italic can help you even if you insist on printing your letters only.

2a. But you'll almost naturally start joining some letters because it's faster, and joining other letters because it looks cool, such as any letter after an f or t.

That is exactly why I have to take this article with a grain of salt. They may have valid points, but they also wrote a book, and this article promotes their book.

I grow weary of anything on the web with an undertone of "Buy my Book! Buy my book!"

What's wrong with that? Read the material critically. Scratch out a few letters on a piece of paper. If it makes sense and you want to go further, buy the book.

As far as advertising goes, this is pretty useful -- it gives me some value even if I don't buy the book, and directs me to a resource that I might be genuinely interested in.

I take potential self-promotion with the same grain of salt, but it's a mistake to dismiss everything this way.

I also did the self-course in their book a couple of years ago, and the results were amazing. This really is a better way to write than what most people have ended up with. The only reason my writing is not better today is that I just don't hand-write enough to keep from devolving to what I learned from school.

The authors have been involved in hand-writing for decades. Anyone with poor hand-writing would do well to consider this or some similar focus on italic writing (there are more than one).

I also have this book and recommend it for anyone who wants neat, readable writing that is pleasant on the eyes, a combination that is really difficult to do with Palmer cursive.

The one biggest take-away, which I wish had a reference, though it's self-supporting by example, is that we recognize letters by their tops, not their bottoms.

That's because the bottoms all look the same, and not because of something intrinsic in looking at the top vs the bottom of line of words.

If you want something that is still joined but without all those funny loops, you might also find the simplified cursives used in german elementary schools interesting:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinfachte_Ausgangsschrift (yes, the lowercase e if funny, our kid's school uses this script with a more classical e like in the following link:) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulausgangsschrift

"And now pick up a pencil or a pen (if you're really courageous) and practice on this very page."

3 things: 1. How quaint! 2. Did anyone else notice that the entire article was a giant .jpg? 3. Good on them for not being afraid to start a sentence with "And".

...and we lefties are still screwed...

It's actually easier to get an attractive slant with the Palmer method writing left handed with an overhook. Conceded that writing from underneath is tricky with the left hand, which is why I never learned to do it.

Most people don't fully understand how difficult it is to write with your left hand, especially in school.

The first and most obvious problem is created by right-handed desks, forcing us lefties to reach across our bodies to write with no support for our arm. Now, granted, there are usually one or two desks in a classroom for left-handers, but with 8-10% of the population being lefties, that leaves a shortage of left-handed desks in every classroom in America.

The fact that the English language is written from left to right creates an even bigger disadvantage for left-handers though, because it forces us to push the pen across the page. This is in stark contrast to all those righties who get to effortlessly drag the pen across the page while resting their arm on that comfortable right-hander desk of yours.

Fortunately for us lefties though, we're inherently smarter than our right handed counterparts:

http://isittrue.msn.com/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=1319838...

Who's to argue with Einstein, Newton, Franklin and Picasso? :)

Umm, given 20-30 people in a class, that comes out to 2-3 left handed desks...

Your points are valid, as he or she forgot to mention the following:

In most classrooms, not a day goes by without the teacher requesting students rearrange their desks to work in groups together, and that's all it takes for the desks to be in a different order for the next class.

Even if left-handed desks never moved, there are no rules that left-handed desks are actually for left-handers only. As a classroom fills up, it's hard to tell which remaining desks are left-handed. It's also hard for right-handers to remember to look for the same, and end up sitting wherever they were about to, along with left-handers.

Left-handed desks are worthless when there are no policies about actually using them. And half-desks are worse than full-desks, anyway.

http://handedness.org/action/fairdesks.html

Brilliant article! This takes it to the next level in discussing institutionalized discrimination. I never knew how hard I actually had it. :)

As a lefty, I hope that people don't read that website and think we're all melodramatic crybabies! Lots of things in life are a little bit harder when you're left handed, fortunately we were granted extra brains to help deal with it.

Three of the last four US presidents were left handed. Is that some kind of institutionalized discrimination against right-handed politicians?

The first and most obvious problem is created by right-handed desks

I had a good laugh at your post thinking it was rather clever humor and was about to write something witty back about left handed shot glasses, nunchucks, and corkscrews, but then I Googled "left handed desk" just in case and.. crap, you're not kidding! What horrible bloody desks kids are subjected to in your country!

He was being dramatic when he said "every classroom in America." I never saw any serious deployment of asymmetric desks before college. Rather just a handful of them mixed in with a Frankenstein-like assortment of worn-out furniture spanning the 20th century. They were to be avoided.

Left handed Jewish scribes (they write with a quill and ink) have a great advantage because they don't move their hand over the fresh ink.

Right handed ones have to hold their hand in the air over the parchment, or use quicker drying ink.

I'm left handed and I remember in school always having a gray color to the bottom of my hand from the pencil graphite.

I don't use anything resembling the italic style of handwriting, but I do applaud any attention that the issue manages to receive. When this conversation comes up, you hear a lot of people say 'Who uses pen and paper anymore? I only type these days.' But then, the moleskine is an icon for nerds and geeks everywhere, so there's another data point for you.

As for me, I write quite a lot of things down. I don't use italic or block printing; I actually over the last several years started with designing a single uniform style of alphabet to use, then moving on a series of word and letter-sequence abbreviations, glyphs, and the like, in inspiration from the writing systems of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

I guess my point is: given the set of aesthetic values that so many hackers and geeks share, and the sheer amount of time that they spend dealing with letters of all kinds, I am surprised that more of them seem to have absolutely no investment whatsoever in their personal manual expression of written language.

Mourning the Death of Handwriting (time.com)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912419-1,0...

How many people here actually use a pen and paper every day?

I probably use a pen once or twice a month :/

I use a pen and paper daily, sometimes for a few thousand words, but that's the habit of a writer (I still produce the majority of my work on computer). However I write purely in joined italics, even though I know how to write cursive it just appears to be a lot of unnecessary filigree for productive amounts of writing, not to mention that you'd have to do line spacing or the entire thing would be a huge mess.

I'm left handed to begin with and my writing is essentially illegible to many people. In fact it's kind of person-sensitive in that the majority of people who can read it are either left handed also or are related or close friends with a left handed person. Right handed people are generally blessed with neat handwriting as they're writing the correct way, so they rarely get experience reading poor hand writing.

My shoddy writing always allowed me to read the teacher's writing in school though, but that's only because theirs was always worse than mine.

I often "think" on paper. So, I use a pen and paper almost every day.

This isn't writing intended for consumption. I'm the only person who ever looks at my own notes, and even then I only ever look back a page or two. Because I'm thinking through a problem or design, older notes are usually less valuable -- either I've changed my mind on the topic (arrived at a better solution), or I've implemented the solution and moved on to something else.

My notes include a lot of lists, diagrams, symbols, follow-up thoughts in the margins, etc. I think writing the equivalent notes on computer wouldn't feel as natural.

I don't write very quickly. I only need to keep up with my thoughts, so that's not a problem (I'm not sure I didn't insult myself just now).

Anyway, my handwriting is probably fairly legible -- a side effect of not being in a hurry. I imagine it would look different if I were trying to get words on paper as quickly as possible. I print, but over the years some of the letters have developed there own style. I suppose that happens to most people's handwriting.

I look forward to being able to replace my legal pad and notebooks for a properly useful tablet. Until then, I use pen and paper every day.

After then, I'll likely still be using a tablet pen to write every single day. When diagramming, or editing, it's just too easy to jot out notes in handwriting rather than calling up some on-screen keyboard.

I find diagrams and other structural / notational concepts are far easier to put onto paper with a pen than enter into a computer. For example, I was recently implementing a Patricia trie, and I jotted down some of the different cases for node splitting etc., to get the semantics clear in my head for the code I was about to write. Typing it into the computer would have been much more laborious.

I keep a logbook and write down everything I do (well, everything work-related) in it.

Looking at it now, I see that I mostly print -- my letters almost never join up. I'm really not convinced that joining letters together saves any time at all.

I jot notes or write them for other people all the time.

It's interesting to note how many people here are commenting on the inefficiency of writing in the cursive style. This got me thinking about the role of handwriting today.

I imagine that our English script originated (probably from Latin) as a way of either carving text on rock or writing with a feather pen. It probably wasn't designed with speed in mind.

The same with the East, where Chinese characters were originally designed to be written with a brush vertically, and not in a fast manner using a pen. (Even they have something almost like cursive script called "grass script").

Thankfully (?) I was sent to a rather intensive school where I learnt cursive writing at young age, and had to use it in all my written work. I'm surprised to say that NONE of my friends today know how to write in it. This speaks for itself as to how inefficient cursive writing is since noone really cares for it.

There are "shorthand" methods I've heard of, but I guess I've just been too lazy to learn them:

http://www.alysion.org/handy/althandwriting.htm http://www.omniglot.com/writing/shorthand.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand

Our alphabet is derived from the Roman which is derived from Greek which is derived from Phoenician. Our uppercase letters are copied from Roman versions meant to be carved on stone. The lowercase are derived from medieval variants (mainly Carolingian) designed to be written by hand.

So lowercase letters were designed with speed in mind. Though, interestingly, if you write uppercase fast (like I and a lot of other people do) you tend to reproduce the evolution of lowercase.

I was taught cursive in elementary school and promptly stopped using it because I found it hard to read.

I'm now taking a Russian course(for fun) and my teacher explained that Russians do not print. I'm now at a disadvantage at reading written Russian(cursive), not only because I cannot read cursive, but also because I'm not as familiar with Russian as English.

I think there's a (mostly) non-sequitur there. Russian cursive handwriting bears only a very faint resemblance to Latin cursive. Russian cursive is (famously) hard to read and confusing because so many of the letters either look like other cursive letters, or even worse, look like other printed letters. Indeed if you were really totally ignorant of printed Latin cursive you'd probably find RC easier to read, because you wouldn't be seeing bloody Ms everywhere.

As a native Russian speaker and someone who reads printed Russian without a problem, I still struggle to read Russian cursive reliably. It's something that takes practice and occasionally even the ability to infer what the word ought to be.

If I had to work with and encounter Russian handwriting on a more regular basis I'm sure I'd be better at it, but as is, with me only needing to try to decipher things once a month, I find myself struggling. If I were just learning the language I would hate to be subjected to that.

It wasn't that bad in High School.

As a russian, I can add to this. Lettershapes in cyrillic cursive look nothing like printed ones. When I started school I could read perfectly, yet handwritten notices on the door looked like greek; I had to ask adults to read them.

Admittedly, there is a good reason for cyrillic cursive's existance: shapes of printed letters are just not suited for writing them by hand. Whereas in latin most letters can be printed with just one or two pen strokes (even disallowing retracing), cyrillic letters take two or three at minimum. Probably related to the fact that cyrillic mostly developed after printing was invented, and changed by acts of kings and church, while latin had a much longer and gentlier history.

Pen on paper: I'm writing a note to myself, such as a shopping list. Block letters or scribble.

Marker on whiteboard: I'm writing to be read from across the room. Block letters.

Since I don't do art calligraphy and I don't have any relatives so old fashioned they expect handwritten paper-mail, I simply don't find any use for penmanship as a skill.

The best thing that ever happened to my handwriting was learning to keep up with my real analysis professor, who filled one blackboard after another. It forced the kinds of efficiencies described in the article.

Their book is available from the publisher, Allport Editions, at half the best price on Amazon.

I just concentrate on understanding in those cases. Writing in class is useless for me, as I never get back to my notes anyway.

A few told me, that being unable to write (e.g. broken arm) made them understand stuff in class better. Interestingly they always went back to writing afterwards.

Recursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back recursive handwriting.

Anyone? :)

Recursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back recursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back recursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back recursive handwriting considered harmful; bring back...

In Sweden there was an initiative in the seventies to teach children to write like the author proposes. The reform didn't catch on very well though, in part since it's slower to write like that and in part due to teachers preferring the loop style.

These days it's up to the teachers (according to an article I read, http://hans.presto.tripod.com/metro000603.html [swedish]) which style to teach.

I find that after a little practice with typography, my handwriting moved to something similar to this naturally (including air joins when necessary).

I've recently worked a bit to reacquire my cursive skills, and as someone who practices both pretty fluently I'll vouch for italic as being easier to read and easier/faster to write.

My general handwriting is italic-form. I use block lettering, classic straight lettering, and cursive as various ways to denote headings and sidenotes.

My Mom is a third grade teacher, and they recently stopped teaching cursive writing for many of these reasons.

In college I used to have $1 prizes sometimes for people who could write the entire alphabet in cursive within a minute (lower and uppercase). The success rate was probably about 10%. It's always things like uppercase z's and q's that kill people. Best with a group of people racing.

Article is worth it for one reason:

I tried the "UFO catcher grip" (with the pencil between the index and middle fingers) depicted and saw immediate increase in the legibility of my hurried block printing.

I achieved greater lateral control of the pencil with this grip, also.

This is, more or less, the writing my school taught me in the UK.

before we change our writing style, we should really start using real type on our webpages and not just pictures of text. This is year 2009.

scnr

Reply on news.ycombinator.com