Imagination while reading?

[TimMason]

According to Ingarden a literary work can be thought of as consisting of four strata - the stratum of word sounds, the stratum of meaning units, the stratum of represented objectivities and the stratum of schematized aspects.

He seems to be forgetting something; does he talk about typesetting, calligraphy, space on the page? As the Chinese or Japanese will tell you, these are an integral and an important aspect of the literary work. Or just visit this site.

[Mitchi]

Originally Posted by TimMason

He seems to be forgetting something; does he talk about typesetting, calligraphy, space on the page? As the Chinese or Japanese will tell you, these are an integral and an important aspect of the literary work. Or just visit this site.

Some how that makes me sad that multiple typefaces in a book usually only show up in childrens's/teen books (like Sweet Valley Senior Year for example, where all the diary entry chapters showed up as different fonts for the hand writing of each character, and set a mood for their personality). Then again, having multiple typefaces in a book is hard to pull off without being tacky.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

He seems to be forgetting something; does he talk about typesetting, calligraphy, space on the page? As the Chinese or Japanese will tell you, these are an integral and an important aspect of the literary work. Or just visit this site.

One of the criticisms that can rightly be made of Ingarden is that his theory is limited by his exposure to European literature of a certain historical period. Not only does this lead him down a path of ignoring other world literatures, but also leads him to derive a normative literary aesthetics which cannot account for much in western literary fiction of the latter half of the twentieth century. Notwithstanding that he does provide a framework, a starting point, for thinking about the cognitive operations involved in making meaning in a literary context and asks very sensible questions about the status of the objects that appear in literary works and our cognition of them.

[Over]

I visualize what I read, although it's more like visual memories than movies.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Mitchi

Some how that makes me sad that multiple typefaces in a book usually only show up in childrens's/teen books (like Sweet Valley Senior Year for example, where all the diary entry chapters showed up as different fonts for the hand writing of each character, and set a mood for their personality). Then again, having multiple typefaces in a book is hard to pull off without being tacky.

I don't find it all that uncommon to see multiple typefaces in p-books I read. They are usually used to distinguish text being reproduced or quoted from a document (real or fictional), such a letter or legal notice. A recent example would be the popular "Shopaholic" novels published in the last few years. They include reproductions of typed letters the protaganist has sent to various businesses and their replies typed under company letterheads. I've also seen it used to show something, even though printed in English, is actually being spoken in a language other than the one the book is normally being spoken in.

You are correct, though, that it is difficult to use muliple typefaces without it looking tacky, not to mention junky or too busy. I have several hymnals that just "copy and pasted" hymns from several sources into one hymnal. The notation standards vary from hymn to hymn and the resulting hymnal just looks cheap and amateurish, especially now that the vast majority of music notation can be done on computers instead being physically engraved on metal plates. Heck, I'm a novice "engraver" myself although I have done some "professional" work (i.e. the "engraving" I've done has been for small time commercial use or used by a small indie band).

[TimMason]

a normative literary aesthetics which cannot account for much in western literary fiction of the latter half of the twentieth century

Experiments with typography date from at least the end of the 19th Century - if not earlier (Sterne makes much use of space on the page). Calligraphy is important to some productions even after the invention of the printing press.

BTW, the site you get to from the second link is about Visual Storytelling: it's very interesting.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Experiments with typography date from at least the end of the 19th Century - if not earlier (Sterne makes much use of space on the page). Calligraphy is important to some productions even after the invention of the printing press.

It's an interesting point isn't it - there was a thread on here a little while ago with the title "I don't care how books smell", or something like that. The point being that there is a question of how far the physical properties of a work impact the reading of that work. A number of people made the argument that they read for "content" and do not really care whether the book smells like a book and so, for them, electronic reading is not an impoverished form of reading compared with reading paper books. The same argument might be, and was as I recall, extended to typography and layout. I've just re-read Mann's The Magic Mountain on my ereader. Because of the zoom level at which I read it every third page consisted of about four or five lines "left over" from the previous page. This was slightly annoying to begin with but I am not sure if and how it impacted on the meaning that the book had for me, or on my ability to reconstruct the story world portrayed by Mann.

I'm not claiming that typography and layout do not have an impact, but it is not obvious that they do and saying just what that impact is seems sometimes to be quite difficult.

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by TGS

It's an interesting point isn't it - there was a thread on here a little while ago with the title "I don't care how books smell", or something like that. The point being that there is a question of how far the physical properties of a work impact the reading of that work. A number of people made the argument that they read for "content" and do not really care whether the book smells like a book and so, for them, electronic reading is not an impoverished form of reading compared with reading paper books. The same argument might be, and was as I recall, extended to typography and layout. I've just re-read Mann's The Magic Mountain on my ereader. Because of the zoom level at which I read it every third page consisted of about four or five lines "left over" from the previous page. This was slightly annoying to begin with but I am not sure if and how it impacted on the meaning that the book had for me, or on my ability to reconstruct the story world portrayed by Mann.

I'm not claiming that typography and layout do not have an impact, but it is not obvious that they do and saying just what that impact is seems sometimes to be quite difficult.

I'd like to comment on this, too. Although from what I've read, many (if not most) of the people here are fairly particular about fonts, I seem to have no particular preferences and it really doesn't impact my reading enjoyment. I really can't say WHY that is, but truly, unless it is some sort of novelty font it doesn't matter to me.

[TimMason]

I'm not claiming that typography and layout do not have an impact, but it is not obvious that they do and saying just what that impact is seems sometimes to be quite difficult.

Writers - or at least some of them - do seem to think that these matters are important. Sterne did, Mallarmé did. It's difficult to imagine (for me, at least) what the impact of Dickens' works would have been without the illustrations, and without the care taken to place them in the text that the author exercised. Similarly, Alice is not Alice without Tenniel. The way the words run past the opening illustration in my edition of Alice in Wonderland is a marked feature which is clearly designed to have an effect on the reader.

This kind of thing may not impact on all readers - or may not impact consciously on all readers - but it does on some. Not all writers are bothered about it; just as there are readers who only read for the story (or, at least, so they say), so there are writers who pay little attention to anything other than the story itself. But some writers are, and so are some readers.

I'd be inclined to see space and typeface as aspects of the paratext, and to argue that choice of font makes a difference to the readers' experience of the writing, whether s/he recognizes it or not. Lay a bare-bones Gutenberg text next to the original edition: there's a difference. It's not the same book.

I imagine that eReaders, the electronic book, once they become commonplace, and once they come to be seen as what they are - that is to say, a totally different medium from the old paper-printed book - we will see authors and publishers using that medium to effect visual and spatial designs that will change the way people experience reading, just as print changed that experience. And that will change the way we imagine.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by bjones6416

I'd like to comment on this, too. Although from what I've read, many (if not most) of the people here are fairly particular about fonts, I seem to have no particular preferences and it really doesn't impact my reading enjoyment. I really can't say WHY that is, but truly, unless it is some sort of novelty font it doesn't matter to me.

Not necessarily particular, but for me it's a case of trying to find the easiest font to read in the viewer that has dark grey eink on an off-white background.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'm not claiming that typography and layout do not have an impact, but it is not obvious that they do and saying just what that impact is seems sometimes to be quite difficult.

The purpose of typography is to disappear so you absorb the contents without noticing the letters. For a very long time, this was combined with the purpose of cramming as many words on a page as possible in order to reduce printing costs; balancing "large enough to read clearly, with enough whitespace not to get lost" with "cheap enough to print and make a profit" was a balancing act, with a tertiary goal of "make our books memorable so they'll buy more from us if they liked them."

Ebooks and other digital content drastically changes the balancing act. There is no more "too few words on a page to print"--there's only "so few words on the page that the reader can't flip them fast enough and loses the story." No reason not to put a blank line between paragraphs; it makes them easier to spot--especially on low-res screens. OTOH, the tech limitations make it harder to provide things like "script font for letters in the middle of the novel."

We've made enough advances in typography that most people think "no typography" is okay, when really what they mean is that "the typography used by default in simple computer programs is okay for me."

That typography was established over many years of testing; thousands of hacker-geeks worked to come up with pixel-based fonts that differentiated between letters well enough to work on black screens with amber text. (Well. I think it's likely only a few dozen geeks actively worked on it; thousands sent feedback and said "This part sucks; I can't tell the difference between 1 and I; fix that you jerks or I'm buying a [PET/TSR/S-100/Commodore64/Apple/whatever next time..")

[rblover]

Many Dyslexics, ADHD, etc, sufferers CAN become good readers...but it usually requires an extra effort on their parts. Some make it, and others don't. Those who do should spend some time helping others do likewise. All people who read well, or read often in spite of reading less well, should be congratulated.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by rblover

Many Dyslexics, ADHD, etc, sufferers CAN become good readers...but it usually requires an extra effort on their parts. Some make it, and others don't. Those who do should spend some time helping others do likewise. All people who read well, or read often in spite of reading less well, should be congratulated.

I have ADHD and very mild dyslexia and learned to read well at an early age. I usually read at well above my grade level. I didn't require any extra effort; I took to reading like a duck to water.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The purpose of typography is to disappear so you absorb the contents without noticing the letters.

simply and plainly ridiculous, not you dear friend, but your statement. The fine art (repeat art) of typography is liquidated like this. Pfui! there you go, Manunzio, Bodoni, all the work on design of characters, the composition, the choice of paper, the balance of the page. The fine art of bounding.
All this liquidated with few words. under the superiority of what, of whom ...

Horror. Horror vacui.

this is a page of a book printed in 1958, by bona in 900 copies. This is number 886. It is the history of D'Olao Magnus archibishop of Upsalla of th costums od the Northern People. it appeared in Rome in 1554 (printed in Basel in 1567.

Reading it gives a lot of pleasures. More than just the words.

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The purpose of typography is to disappear so you absorb the contents without noticing the letters.

I agree but there have been many books that have typography that made it more difficult for me to read because of my bad eyes. My daughter just decided to read Harry Potter and as I was looking at the first book it reminded me of how many headaches I had while reading the wispy letters. I didn't care at all for the HP typography. I far prefer being able to hack my Kindle with my preferred type font (Arial) and reading with more comfort. Of course, one can't legally read HP on an electronic device.