5 ms·

Matthew Butterick disagrees strongly with the Crystal Goblet[1]. His argument that it's impossible not to communicate with typographical choices convinced me to

Matthew Butterick disagrees strongly with the Crystal Goblet[1]. His argument that it's impossible not to communicate with typographical choices convinced me to doubt the contents of the text “The Crystal Goblet”. [1] https://practicaltypography.com/drowning-the-crystal-goblet.html https://practicaltypography.com/drowning-the-crystal-goblet....

mrob 8y ago
I do everything I can to make typography invisible to me. I do this by converting it all to the same style. I don't allow websites to chose their own fonts. I use Firefox's Reader View whenever possible. I remove all formatting from ebooks and apply my own CSS in Calibre. I'm convinced that the most legible typography is the one you're most familiar with, and if you consistently read the same typography it will become the metaphorical crystal. The actual design of the type matters very little.
- RandomGuyDTB 8y ago
  I might do that myself, that sounds really cool. I've never imagined doing that before.
mannykannot 8y ago
Butterick is claiming a significance for the appearance of text that simply is not there. Are an author's thoughts incomplete until they have been typeset and printed?
- ivanbakel 8y ago
  That's a question that misses the thrust of the argument - how do you intend to read an author's thoughts? Butterick is discussing text, and text doesn't exist without typography (or handwriting).
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    > Butterick is discussing text, and text doesn't exist without typography (or handwriting). That argument is essentially the empty tautology "you can't have text without writing." I don't agree with him, but I am not claiming that his argument is anything like that trite. My opinion is that Butterick gives way too much significance to presentation. He writes "presentation matters specifically because it’s not meaningless", but it is extremely rare for it to significantly add to the meaning.
    - ivanbakel 8y ago
      >but it is extremely rare for it to significantly add to the meaning Then what exactly are you disagreeing with him about? Your initial comment suggested to me that you thought typography had no significance to text. Now you say that it does - but Butterick doesn't say something about how important typography is, only that it is important. Just that simpler claim is his objection to the Crystal Goblet.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        So what sort of importance do you think Butterick thinks typography has? Minimally important, perhaps? Trivially important? Insignificantly important? Unimportantly important? What you are trying here is a weak-man fallacy, restating Butterick's objection in the weakest possible terms, in the hope that there's no gap between it and the dissenting opinion for the dissenter to get any leverage. It's like a boxer's clinch, holding on tight to his opponent so that his opponent cannot take a swing at him. Unfortunately for you, "importance" just isn't suitable for this ploy, because "unimportantly important" just means not important. It is nonsense to suggest that Betterick did something so pointless as to write this article because he differs in the slightest possible way from the position set out in the Crystal Goblet. Of course he thinks there is a significant difference. Maybe if it were typeset differently, you would see that?
        ivanbakel 8y ago
        >So what sort of importance do you think Butterick thinks typography has? Minimally important, perhaps? Trivially important? Insignificantly important? Unimportantly important? I think to discuss that is beside the point - the article is not making a relative argument. Butterick claims that it is important. >It is nonsense to suggest that Betterick did something so pointless as to write this article because he differs in the slightest possible way from the position set out in the Crystal Goblet. Why? The Crystal Goblet puts forward an absolutist position - typography is so subservient to writing that it is meant to be "invisible". The gradients of "how much" typography matters are all significantly more similar than how they all differ to claiming that typography doesn't matter at all. I don't think Butterick really feels that typography matters the minimal possible non-zero amount - but even if he did, he would already be miles away from agreeing with the Goblet, because that would already be a completely different approach to text. Besides which, Drowning the Crystal Goblet makes no claim on "how much" - so objecting to the significance he places on typography requires either * assuming how much significance he places on it, and then objecting to that, or * objecting to any amount of significance
theoh 8y ago
The larger discussion that this connects to is about the relationship between form and content. Generally, people you might describe as sophisticated critics tend to dismiss the idea that form can be a neutral container for content. Form and content are "indissoluble" or they should form a "unity", or at least be in "harmony". Often the goal is for the form to be in the service of the content, subtly supporting and amplifying it. In practice, tailoring form to content, or pursuing form for its own sake, requires more resources. It's a luxury. Standard formats are the most economical way to transmit text, for the producer. But throwing away the skill of the typographer altogether (just using standard forms/formats) means throwing away the artistic experience that typographic design can sometimes achieve, and the reader loses out in that scenario. It's routine to hear cinematographers and film editors talk about how their craft should be invisible. That doesn't mean they force every scene into the same straightjacket, or that you can't see their craft if you look. Typography is a little bit different, but it is often obvious when a typographer is trying hard to show off. Whether that kind of result appeals to you or not is a matter of taste.

mrob 8y ago

I do everything I can to make typography invisible to me. I do this by converting it all to the same style. I don't allow websites to chose their own fonts. I use Firefox's Reader View whenever possible. I remove all formatting from ebooks and apply my own CSS in Calibre. I'm convinced that the most legible typography is the one you're most familiar with, and if you consistently read the same typography it will become the metaphorical crystal. The actual design of the type matters very little.

RandomGuyDTB 8y ago
I might do that myself, that sounds really cool. I've never imagined doing that before.

mannykannot 8y ago

Butterick is claiming a significance for the appearance of text that simply is not there. Are an author's thoughts incomplete until they have been typeset and printed?

ivanbakel 8y ago
That's a question that misses the thrust of the argument - how do you intend to read an author's thoughts? Butterick is discussing text, and text doesn't exist without typography (or handwriting).
- mannykannot 8y ago
  > Butterick is discussing text, and text doesn't exist without typography (or handwriting). That argument is essentially the empty tautology "you can't have text without writing." I don't agree with him, but I am not claiming that his argument is anything like that trite. My opinion is that Butterick gives way too much significance to presentation. He writes "presentation matters specifically because it’s not meaningless", but it is extremely rare for it to significantly add to the meaning.
  - ivanbakel 8y ago
    >but it is extremely rare for it to significantly add to the meaning Then what exactly are you disagreeing with him about? Your initial comment suggested to me that you thought typography had no significance to text. Now you say that it does - but Butterick doesn't say something about how important typography is, only that it is important. Just that simpler claim is his objection to the Crystal Goblet.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      So what sort of importance do you think Butterick thinks typography has? Minimally important, perhaps? Trivially important? Insignificantly important? Unimportantly important? What you are trying here is a weak-man fallacy, restating Butterick's objection in the weakest possible terms, in the hope that there's no gap between it and the dissenting opinion for the dissenter to get any leverage. It's like a boxer's clinch, holding on tight to his opponent so that his opponent cannot take a swing at him. Unfortunately for you, "importance" just isn't suitable for this ploy, because "unimportantly important" just means not important. It is nonsense to suggest that Betterick did something so pointless as to write this article because he differs in the slightest possible way from the position set out in the Crystal Goblet. Of course he thinks there is a significant difference. Maybe if it were typeset differently, you would see that?
      - ivanbakel 8y ago
        >So what sort of importance do you think Butterick thinks typography has? Minimally important, perhaps? Trivially important? Insignificantly important? Unimportantly important? I think to discuss that is beside the point - the article is not making a relative argument. Butterick claims that it is important. >It is nonsense to suggest that Betterick did something so pointless as to write this article because he differs in the slightest possible way from the position set out in the Crystal Goblet. Why? The Crystal Goblet puts forward an absolutist position - typography is so subservient to writing that it is meant to be "invisible". The gradients of "how much" typography matters are all significantly more similar than how they all differ to claiming that typography doesn't matter at all. I don't think Butterick really feels that typography matters the minimal possible non-zero amount - but even if he did, he would already be miles away from agreeing with the Goblet, because that would already be a completely different approach to text. Besides which, Drowning the Crystal Goblet makes no claim on "how much" - so objecting to the significance he places on typography requires either * assuming how much significance he places on it, and then objecting to that, or * objecting to any amount of significance

theoh 8y ago

The larger discussion that this connects to is about the relationship between form and content. Generally, people you might describe as sophisticated critics tend to dismiss the idea that form can be a neutral container for content. Form and content are "indissoluble" or they should form a "unity", or at least be in "harmony". Often the goal is for the form to be in the service of the content, subtly supporting and amplifying it. In practice, tailoring form to content, or pursuing form for its own sake, requires more resources. It's a luxury. Standard formats are the most economical way to transmit text, for the producer. But throwing away the skill of the typographer altogether (just using standard forms/formats) means throwing away the artistic experience that typographic design can sometimes achieve, and the reader loses out in that scenario. It's routine to hear cinematographers and film editors talk about how their craft should be invisible. That doesn't mean they force every scene into the same straightjacket, or that you can't see their craft if you look. Typography is a little bit different, but it is often obvious when a typographer is trying hard to show off. Whether that kind of result appeals to you or not is a matter of taste.