I have been using Palatino for a while now. I like it much better than the sterile Times New Roman. Now I am a bit tired of this font, so I am writing one of my chapters in Baskerville. A good font has to have serifs, unless we are talking about Chicago, maybe, and that only for a very specific kind of writing. It cannot be ornate or distracting, but must be actively pleasurable to look at. In other words, transparent, ma non troppo. Baskerville has a considerable contrast between the thick and thin lines.
I know other people feel you should just use TNR because it is the default and you only want to call attention to yourself through the writing itself, not the type face. I understand that perspective. But that font, for me, just does not sing. Of course, a very fancy or oddball font would cause a horrible impression for a scholarly article.
6 comments:
Note: this post is not in Baskerville. I will talk about type faces in my theory course too. Why not?
Years ago I had a poet friend who swore that Baskerville was irresistible to editors. He sent out all his poems in Baskerville and he did have a high rate of acceptance. He teaches at a well-known MFA program in the South.
I never succumbed to Baskerville. I am very fond of Garamond.
I recently discovered Baskerville and like it very much. In fact, I went looking for a different font than Times or TNR in response to your remark about how one should not just accept the default. It made me realize that I don't particularly like Times/TNR!
The danger is the the font will sing so loudly that everything written in ti will seem beautifull, even if it is not.
I have heard that Baskerville causes readers to agree with what is said in the document.
I have heard that Baskerville causes readers to agree with what is said in the document.
Post a Comment