3 ms·

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

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
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        Firstly, you are mistaken about the Crystal Goblet, and maybe, in this case, Butterick is doing the same. It is predicated on the assumption that typography does have an effect; Warde goes on to claim that it is at its best when it is not ostentatiously drawing attention to itself. Secondly, you are attempting to create a straw man by insisting that the Crystal Goblet must be (mis)read as an absolute manifesto, but if you need to do that, you don't really have much of an argument against it (I don't think Butterick is making this error.) Thirdly, you are waffling over whether Butterick is claiming a significant difference between himself and Warde. By the fifth paragraph, you are tentatively acknowledging that Butterick is (probably) making such a claim, which is wise, because otherwise your argument would quite clearly just be pointlessly and tiresomely pedantic (something that I would not accuse Butterick of being.) Immediately after that, however, you resume being pedantic by bringing back the straw man, saying that it would not matter if Butterick was not claiming a significant difference because (your misunderstanding of) Warde's position is that it is an absolutist one. This sort of having-your-cake-and-eating-it sometimes goes by the name of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Maybe we should just go back to my original point: what, of significance, is a typical work of prose missing before it is typeset? you might actually be able to make a case for mathematics, some poetry and possibly medieval illuminated manuscripts, but these are corner cases in comparison to the global corpus of prose.

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
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      Firstly, you are mistaken about the Crystal Goblet, and maybe, in this case, Butterick is doing the same. It is predicated on the assumption that typography does have an effect; Warde goes on to claim that it is at its best when it is not ostentatiously drawing attention to itself. Secondly, you are attempting to create a straw man by insisting that the Crystal Goblet must be (mis)read as an absolute manifesto, but if you need to do that, you don't really have much of an argument against it (I don't think Butterick is making this error.) Thirdly, you are waffling over whether Butterick is claiming a significant difference between himself and Warde. By the fifth paragraph, you are tentatively acknowledging that Butterick is (probably) making such a claim, which is wise, because otherwise your argument would quite clearly just be pointlessly and tiresomely pedantic (something that I would not accuse Butterick of being.) Immediately after that, however, you resume being pedantic by bringing back the straw man, saying that it would not matter if Butterick was not claiming a significant difference because (your misunderstanding of) Warde's position is that it is an absolutist one. This sort of having-your-cake-and-eating-it sometimes goes by the name of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Maybe we should just go back to my original point: what, of significance, is a typical work of prose missing before it is typeset? you might actually be able to make a case for mathematics, some poetry and possibly medieval illuminated manuscripts, but these are corner cases in comparison to the global corpus of prose.