pas de blog: snotty repartee

Honestly! I never thought your blog would last this long. Will wonders never cease?

You’re really too kind, Sir. But certainly, you know about the logarithmic perception of time; as we grow older, it all becomes increasingly compressed.

Oh, you must have misunderstood me! I was merely expressing amazement, and I received a science lesson in return! Though my attentions to you may be unwelcome, I’ll tell you this: I’m entirely familiar with everything you have written, and I’ll have to say that I still don’t understand daidala. What are you trying to do with it, and where are you headed? Is it some sort of typographic journal? Is it a venue for your attempts at humor? Do tell!

If I’m confusing you, then I sincerely apologize. Truth be told, I just write down whatever’s on my mind. And after the workday is over, and after everyone else in the house has gone to bed, I often focus on type.

Dear me, late night trysts with a cathode ray tube! That must be hard on your poor family, slumbering without you. And on your unfortunate employer as well, having to accept the proposals, findings, and conclusions of a sleepy statistician! But plod on nonetheless, you idealistic, martyred soul. I’m curious, however – and of course, I mean no offense in the least – but why don’t you just keep a private journal? You know – your own special place for your own special thoughts – and leave serious discourse on type to the experts.

If you had truly been reading – as you claim – then you would know that daidala is, at least in part, my own attempt at a personal – albeit public – education in type, and you should also be aware that this attempt is yet in its nascent phase. But to answer you more directly, I’ve never proclaimed any authority on the topic. I do feel that I possess some knowledge that might be useful, however, and knowledge hoarded is knowledge wasted.

Ingenuous generosity itself! How endearingly diplomatic; how convincingly coy! Lest you attempt to charm the pants off of me a second time, please allow me back up a step and ask the really relevant question here, which is: With all of the other excellent, well-informed sites on typography, is there really a place for your daidala?

Fair enough, I grant you; a question I ask myself, as a matter of fact. I strongly believe that the best way to advance the discipline of typography is through dialogue – or via polylogue – if I am permitted to invent a more descriptive term...

I’m fairly certain you didn’t invent it, o wishful, wordsmithing theoretician, but go on...

Anyway, through polylogue, which I would define as simultaneous communication by many participants on several, related subjects, and with one, overarching aim. Typophile, Typographica, TYPO-L, and Speak Up allow for this – nay, provide for this, actually – by engaging participants forum-style. My site, on the other hand...

Is – I suppose you’ll tell me – a monoblog, as opposed to a polyblog, and as such, offers nothing of the kind...

As I was saying, my site is, for all intents and purposes, a monologue – yes, a monoblog, if you will – a vehicle for one-way communication. I’ve thought about pursuing a Movable Type-based weblog; more seriously, I’ve also contemplated – on more than one occasion – just calling up Stephen and inquiring very nicely whether I might somehow become a fourth wheel in his operation. But then monoblogging has its advantages, too. I can write about whatever or whomever I wish, more or less with impunity. By going solo, I’m a bit freer to learn and to make mistakes, and if I don’t want to write about type, I don’t have to.

Which is patently evident! You write about your college teachers, about selling shoes to schizophrenics, about disco music you happen to fancy; and most bothersome of all, you sometimes don’t write at all for weeks on end. A major concern of mine is, as pertains to one, particular feature of your site – your “twenty more” Textism rip-off – that you seem to have become ensnared in the trap of (1) fall in love with font, (2) proclaim your love of said font to world, and (3) make GIF of beloved font using silly excerpts from Shakespeare or Jane Austen. On one level, at least, it seems to me you’re really nothing but a type whore. In fact, you want to score with the entire FontFont catalogue, don't you!

Stop already with the terms of endearment! If I understand you correctly, it’s true – I do admire the letterforms first and foremost. But I haven’t always been a moony-eyed monomaniac. I became interested in all of this via Knuth and TeX. Several years ago, out of sheer necessity, I had to produce clean, mathematical copy, and so back then, I was more interested in typesetting than in type. But this is now, and daidala is largely concerned with typefaces and the people who make them; I haven’t settled back into typesetting, nor have I ever really examined it from a purely design-related perspective. I recall hearing a performance of La Bohéme on the radio several years ago, and one of the commentators said something like, “La Bohéme is the first opera people learn to enjoy, because it is so accessible. Then, once their palate becomes more experienced, they begin to appreciate the complexities of other operas...” Well, I can tell you for certain – and without apology – that my La Bohéme phase is still in high gear. Chapter 10 of my copy of Bringhurst is easily my most dog-eared, yet I’ve never tackled chapter eight. Moreover, I’ve tried – and failed – to read Gerrit Noordzij’s Letterletter no fewer than five times. Parenthetically, and with all due respect, would someone kindly tell me what in the hell he is saying? For the most part, I can only read any book on type if it’s got nice pictures of different letterforms on most of the pages. So you see, I haven’t really begun to think about typography – outside of mathematical typography, that is – in terms of setting type on the page in anything but a relatively rudimentary manner; someday, surely, but not yet.

Well, I can say I’m even more disturbed – and disappointed – than I was before we began. You’ve actually convinced me, on occasion, that you had at least a few scholarly bones in your body, but now you tell me that you essentially like looking at letters. The skeleton of a simpleton, and a calcified brain to boot! All in all, here’s how I view you and your weblog, and kindly permit me to be blunt.

You’re asking for permission only now? Gracious soul, the floor is yours!

You’re fundamentally a Pollyanna; you view the world of type and design through some very rosy glasses. One of your greatest faults is that you seem to like everyone and everything in the world you write about, and with such a perspective, you have no edge.

No edge? Okay, so I occasionally give off warm fuzzies. Is that all?

Indeed it is not! Listen carefully. You desperately need – in the forthcoming year of daidala – to take a stand on things, to develop sound arguments, even at the risk of being wholly wrong or of causing offense. You must think more clearly about fundamental and topical issues in type. If you do already, then show it. If you don’t, then start. A little more Hrant, John, Mark, and Kent. Hell, even Bill will do in a pinch!

Like, boumas with attitude?

The bouma already comes with plenty of attitude, as you are undoubtedly aware; but yes, something like. You would do very well to begin, however, with beefier brains and bigger balls.

That’s a very nice visual; thank you for that!

You’re quite welcome. Oh – one more thing: Learn some HTML, for Christ’s sake.

I’ll stick to brains and balls for now, thanks...

20-June 2003