Re: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

[Steve Izma]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 08:36:49PM -0000, Ted Harding wrote:
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> From: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
> To: Steve Izma <address@hidden>
> Subject: RE: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> On 29-Mar-04 Steve Izma wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 Ted Harding wrote:
> >> I agree with you that "final formatting responsibility is shifted
> >> from groff to the author". However, this is not altogether to be
> >> ruled out; quite often, a nasty bit of formatting is mended by
> >> slightly editing the text.
> >> [...]
> > 
> > I think this is important: it implies the difficulty of
> > automating the aesthetic aspects of typography.
> > [...]
> 
> [...]
> Just as a musician playing from a score grasps note clusters as
> a whole and does not have to decipher each dot, so the text reader's
> subsconscious reacts to words or even phrases as a whole. Layout
> affects this grasp, and one of the deeper subtleties of typography
> is using it to provoke the desired rhythms in the reader's mind.

The "rythm of the page" is a phrase and a metaphor that
Bringhurst uses effectively and extensively. I highly recommend
his books on typography.

> [...]
> I note that you write from Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
> Steve, so you may be able to confirm something which I have
> wondered about.
> 
> Namely, when a book has been typeset and some nasty layout has
> occurred in the result, which can be mended by minor changes to
> the text, then if the author doesn't do it spontaneously it
> seems to me that the editor would suggest to the author that
> certain changes could be made in the text itself which would
> improve the layout, and hence the pleasure and profit of reading
> the book. I know that this can occur; what I've been wondering
> is how prevalent it is as a routine editorial intervention.

This brings up another large philosophical (or even ethical)
question: when it comes to producing a book, how should the
credit for it be distributed? Is the author the only artist
involved in the process? The structure of a book, which a lot of
people besides the author or authors contribute to, obviously has
a big influence on its coherence. In the old days when
manuscripts had to be re-keyed for typesetting, typographers,
editors, and authors worked together (more or less) to get things
right, with typesetters usually being the last defence against
bad spelling and punctuation, because after all, it became
reflexively repulsive to typeset bad writing. Then it was easier
to intervene in the way that you refer to above, Ted. Currently,
though, typesetters don't engage the content in much detail at
all, and there's always too much of a rush to sort out fine
suggestions with the author, who could be halfway around the
world and not disposed to dealing with such issues through
e-mail. Last year I had to make some final corrections to a
book someone else had typeset and the author was insisting on
changes *after* the index was done, so the pagination could not
change. Many of the pages had already been sqeezed tight for the
sake of previous fixes, so this was one incident where I could
insist on rephrasing the material. Fortunately, the author and
I got along well and I used to work as an editor. But I
rarely see this happening otherwise. It usually requires an
understanding of the text that typographers are not encouraged to
develop. It also implies a breakdown in the specializations of
editing and typesetting.

I was just perusing some old groff mail and came across what
appears to be Peter Schaffter's original intentions for writing
the MOM macros: 

[from 6 Feb 2001]
  ... The aim of the macro set
  is to allow writers to write ASCII files that are clear and
  easily deciphered (visually) according to the standards of
  normal English practice.  Groff must be able to do it's job
  with minimal presence.
  
This is related to why I wanted to learn troff and unix in the
first place: I wanted tools to help me write and produce typeset
materials up to the standards to which I had become accustomed
using specialized typesetting equipment. I wanted the writing
experience to be as unencumbered as the reading experience we've
been referring to. The WYSIWYG systems are terrible writing tools
and aren't that great for fine tuning of typography, but writing
in ASCII (with a reasonable text editor) allows one to
concentrate on content; using groff allows one to concentrate on
structure at a different stage. So it's usually only when I'm
typesetting my own writing or working collaboratively with other
writers (usually in a non-commercial setting) that I really get
to concentrate on the entire craft of publishing something --
a poster, a pamphlet, or a book. And holding the final results
in my hands makes me very appreciative of everyone in the free
software / open source movement who have collaborated in it
invisibly.

-- 
Steve Izma
    Computing Systems Administrator       (519) 884-0710 ext. 6125
    Wilfrid Laurier University Press      FAX: (519) 725-1399
    Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3C5        address@hidden