Category Archives: Reading

Book reviews and comments.

Disappointing Books

I’ve been disappointed in most of the books I’ve read lately and I can’t figure out why. I’m hoping I’ve just run into a bad batch of books because the alternative is that I’ve lost interest in reading. And that isn’t possible.

In the last few months I’ve read Ghouls Just Haunt to Have Fun and Ghouls Gone Wild, both by Victoria Laurie. And by that, I mean to say I finished Ghouls Just Haunt to Have Fun, but haven’t managed to finish Ghouls Gone Wild. I liked this series when the first book was published, but had a hard time finishing these last two. For some reason, the main character has become annoying, shallow, and stuck in place. I cannot see any character development. To be fair, I’ll probably try to re-read the first two books in the series, and I’m hoping I won’t suddenly hate them, also. Either way, I probably will not purchase any more books in this series.

I’ve had the same problem with Victoria Laurie’s other series, Psychic Eye Mysteries. The main character, Abby, is no longer interesting and Abby’s FBI agent boyfriend is downright irritating. I especially hate his nicknames for Abby. (What kind of nickname is “Sweet Hot?”) I have no interest in reading any additional books in this series.

I’ve also had a problem with the last Mary Janice Davidson book I read in the Undead series. I’ve grown to dislike the main character. Again, she’s shallow, which was originally part of her charm, but now it has just gone on too long. After reading the first six books in this series, I have no interest in purchasing any more books with these characters. I think this may be an excellent example of milking a series that should have stopped when it was a trilogy.

Reading the GeekMom blogs led me to try the Arcane Society series by Amanda Quick/Jayne Ann Krentz/Jayne Castle. I liked the first book, Second Sight, enough to try additional books in the series, but I was also a little disappointed in the book. Maybe Nora Roberts and Linda Howard are spoiling me for great stories, but I expected better from Quick/Krentz/Castle. I did like Second Sight enough that I’m going to try more books in this series, but I’m going to purchase them from a used bookstore.

I’ve actually started reading non-fiction books after this series of disappointments. I purchased a couple of basic physics books to refresh my memory and I recently purchased some nature books that I am looking forward to reading.

I know it cannot be all me because I still love J.D. Robb’s Eve Dallas series and there are more than 30 books in the series. The mysteries are still interesting and the character development is consistent and believable. I also have read the Shirley Damsgaard “Witch” series and am still enjoying the stories.

Scholarly Overwriting

I am updating what might be described as an academic website. Reading for research reminds me that too many academic works are “overwritten.” I thought about compiling a list of complaints, but there are too many to catalog and rank. Instead, I’ll highlight some of the most annoying traits of “scholarly writing.”

Clutter. Academic writers love clutter. Maybe there’s an unwritten agreement to add 22 percent fat to all academic texts. Someone should take a red pen (or the delete key) to every useless piece of filler in the texts. Omit “It is often written that…”, its sibling “Throughout the history of our discipline…”, and other worthless nods to nothing. If something is often written, please don’t remind us. We already know it.

Back patting. If you are quoting or citing someone else, let us assume he or she is a “leading expert” or “noted scholar.” We don’t need the clichéd praise throughout journal articles or books. If you are citing people who are not experts, then we’d like to know. Otherwise, most readers assume citations are from credible sources. The worst offense I’ve read: “The noted scholar Dr. X, celebrated for her preeminent works in the field of Y, has published award-wining research on Y.” Really? Did she write something similar about you? It seems every scholar has to praise his or her peers, review their works in glowing terms, and then wait to be repaid in kind.

Academese. Please stop using jargon no one outside your discipline can decipher. Stop it. I’m willing to bet half the people in your discipline can’t agree on what these manufactured terms mean. Academic jargon is less of an issue in the sciences, which rely on words meaning specific things.

Condescension. Yes, you are a scholar, but that doesn’t mean you are smarter in general or somehow morally superior to others. Scholars are more ignorant than they realize. Complaining that “the public” (which apparently doesn’t include academics), “most Americans,” or “Westerners” are ill-informed and easily manipulated doesn’t persuade readers. Sure, those agreeing with you will feel wonderful upon discovering they are among the superior few, but it is a cheap rhetorical stunt.

I’m going to stop at four broad complaints for now.

I advised my students to write as they would speak to someone outside their discipline. I discovered the students speak in the same stilted academic style I encounter in scholarly texts, minus the footnotes but with verbal citations of experts. Reading too many overwritten texts, the university students mimicked the style because it was perceived to be “intellectual.”

Maybe other “academics” share my revulsion with academic texts? If so, can we start teaching students to write in styles enjoyable to read?

- Scott

Type and Reading

I read many books on typography. Currently, I’m finishing a collection of essays and journal articles on typography. The articles date back to the late nineteenth century, with a particular concentration on two time periods: the 1920s and 1980s. The collection is:

Heller, Steven, and Philip B. Meggs. Texts on Type: Critical Writings on Typography. New York: Allworth Press, 2001. 1581150822 (pbk.)

Though some of the authors, especially the major typographers of the 1920s, called for radical changes to type and letterforms, most of the essays emphasize the need for text to be readable. Type should not interfere in any way with reading, though sometimes it is appropriate for type to convey some meaning visually.

What brings the issue of type “into focus” for me is the rise of eBooks. The display fonts of various devices significantly affects the reading experience.

When the earliest computer screens appeared, they were monochrome displays with either 40 or 80 columns and 20 to 25 rows. Each letter was composed on a 7-by-8 or 8-by-8 pixel grid. The popular systems from Apple, Atari, and Commodore featured the 40-column displays because the screens were often televisions, which had mediocre resolution at best. IBM and other “business” computer companies sold expensive displays with 80-column screens.

A 40-character width with “chunky” or “blocky” letters was difficult to read. Much narrower than the familiar page of paper, reading required a lot of scrolling or “page flipping” and was tedious. Even the 80-column displays weren’t ideal, but they were a lot better.

Today, many of us read on phones and PDAs that are not much better for reading than the television-monitors of the 1970s and 80s. High-resolution devices are appearing, with better contrast and far better font technology. Reading will become easier.

Historically, type has always been limited by technology. Wood blocks were fragile, so letters had to be large and “blocky” just as a low-resolution screen limited the shapes and sizes of letters. Metal type was much better, though there were still wear issues and matters of ink “spread” on paper. Today, displays are getting so much better that fine lines are no longer an issue. Even diagonal lines, an impossible task on old computer displays, are now smooth and easy to see.

In the early days of computing, fonts with slight serifs were used to create letters that closely mimicked the printers of the time. Dot-matrix printers were 80-column devices using the same 8-by-8 grids as screens. However, output and display never matched — only the basic positions of letters could be approximated.

The slight serifs helped differentiate a lowercase “I/i” from “L/l” or “1.” As technology improved, designers found that sans-serif fonts, especially at larger sizes, were better suited to the straight horizontal/vertical lines of a medium-resolution video display. Even today, most television networks use sans-serif fonts onscreen because they are “smoother” on mid-range screens.

I happen to find serif faces easier to read. Finally, eReaders are reaching the point at which a nice serif face is sharp, clear, and readable. I can read serif type faster because the letterforms are more unique than the letters of many sans serif fonts. I am, by nature, a slow reader, so the visual cues of word and letterforms help me decode with less effort.

If you are preparing an eBook with “default fonts” I ask that you use a serif font for the text and sans for the headings. This is similar to the old defaults in Microsoft Word: Times for text, Arial for headings. Some ePubs do not set the fonts, but I would appreciate it if they did. I do set the default fonts of my iPod Touch to these combinations. Of course, I also think a reader should always be free to alter the fonts as long as the design doesn’t alter the author’s or designer’s intentions.

Typographers and designers are involved in eReader development. I hope we someday have screens that are as good as the printed page. It would be nice to see pages that look like familiar magazine layouts, which currently isn’t possible on most devices. The screens simply aren’t up to the task of displaying detailed, elegant, fonts.

- Scott

Reading Habits

Susan and I share a habit, one I find common among “readers” of all sort. I am reading three or four books, each in a different location. Currently, the books I am reading include The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Texts on Type, God is Not One, and two Che biographies (Che and Exposing the Real Che). Because these books are really collections of short essays or stories, it is easy to read a chapter or story in a single sitting. I don’t know that I would read a novel in quite the same way. I tend to read novels in much larger chunks; it is hard for me to keep long stories sorted in my mind.

I have been told I should read one book at a time, but that seems nearly impossible. Does anyone insist on reading one book at time?

eBooks and Design

My collection of works on typography and general design includes some of my favorite books. The art of placing words on a page, or screen, is something I admire. The designer’s choices, which once appeared with some frequency in colophons, shape the reading experience. Nothing appalls me more than a publisher giving no thought to the typography of a text. Books should have personalities, adding to the meaning without harming legibility or readability.

A font can be legible, but not readable — meaning the letters are clear as units, but words or sentences are a challenge to read as a text. Typefaces are designed for specific sizes and for specific purposes. The face at a given size is a font, and in book publishing the preferred fonts are serif faces of 9.5 to 12-point. For nearly two centuries, the traditional book face in the English-language press was Caslon. During the last century, other faces have risen to dominance. Examples of popular book faces include Bookman, Goudy, Palatino, and Times Roman.

The reason I offer this lengthy intro is that I am bothered by one aspect of many eBook formats: the lack of design control.

There is a technological limit: most hardware has only a limited number of fonts. Some eBook readers only offer a serif and a sans-serif face. It’s a luxury to have three or four serif faces and two sans serif faces. The book designer has no control at all over the reading experience. The reader controls the appearance of the book.

Because screen sizes and resolutions vary, the book designer doesn’t control pagination. Spacing, tabs, and line breaks are beyond the control of the designer, as well. In literary works, especially poetry, this is a serious detriment. Poems meant to reside on a page might end up on two or three screens. Visual poetry, in particular, is nearly impossible to support within an eBook.

Someone asked me if I dislike audiobooks. I think some books work as audiobooks while others do not. Obviously, visual poetry does not work as an audiobook, but poetry that was meant to be performed is ideal for audio. I’m sure a great many works are design- and form-independent. But, there are books that are best experienced visually.

An art book is certainly an example of a text that should be designed carefully. Any visual book should be itself a work of art.

It has been suggested that PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format) eBooks could be a solution. The problem is that these are larger files and, while portable, would still present a problem for smaller hardware. Zooming in and out to read a page on a small screen is a hassle, even if it allows the designer more control.

I’m not sure what the solution will be, but the migration to eBooks is inevitable. What this means for design is hard to predict. I hope there is a solution, a way to maintain book personalities in the digital age.

- Scott