Hacker News Reader

Comment by functional-tree | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com