My new look on old characters

I don’t know much about typography. I find the subject absolutely interesting, especially from a historical perspective, but I think I am slightly intimidated by it too. It has thousands of years of history, and more than a few books I have read tell me that “the rules in use today were perfected hundreds of years ago.” I imagine a disciple of Gutenburg, wearing funny little shoes, leaning over and whispering, “yea, hundreds of years… don’t mess it up!” into my ear.

So I try not to mess it up. I take it slowly. I’ve read a few books. I’ve ordered what I hear is the typography bible, but it deserves my undivided attention, so it is still sitting sealed in cellophane on my shelves. The things that I don’t know about typography could undoubtedly fill many, many shelves. That’s why it is always fun to learn something new. And I did today, reading one of the most interesting posts I have seen in a while.

I won’t repeat it as you can read it yourself. However, in this post Mrs. Simmons mentions how common type may be considered almost as a means for wiping out a local dialect. I find that intriguing alone. She goes on to argue, however, that the common symbols further enhance the language of design. Knowing only what I currently do on the subject, I both see her point, and find the thought eye-opening. It is yet another facet of the work that I do day-in-day-out but know virtually nothing about. It is amazing how every large scale object is made up from small atom-like parts. Tomorrow I will go in and look at a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or even a single letter in a new way. Of course, this means I am going to have to unwrap that book sooner than anticipated. But this is useful information, I’ve already thought of an instance where I can apply this new knowledge. But I’m not sharing… I don’t want to mess anything up.

Anyway, thanks to Amber Simmons, who made me think of things differently today, and probably tomorrow too.