In the second chapter of The Book, Borsuk investigates the evolution of book content from the font to the binding and how that changed the way in which people approach books today. Borsuk begins with the origins of the modern codex, which lies with Gutenberg’s printing press in the 1440’s. But as Borsuk notes, “as much as we laud Gutenberg, he was not actually the first person to print with movable type,” instead, it was “Chinese engineer, Bi Shen who developed a technique for printing from clay type he carved by hand” (73). I appreciated this acknowledgement because, not only does it highlight the reality of the movable type’s history, but it also shows how book practices developed relatively independently, as explored in the previous chapter.
Today, when typing, plenty of people don’t even have to consider their font choices so seriously. Though we might change it from Arial to Times New Roman, or if we’re feeling silly, Papyrus or Comic Sans, the labor, artistry, and history of creating fonts isn’t taken into account. In this chapter of The Book Borsuk, when discussing the printing press, goes into how Gutenberg and others had to literally create their own font. This task was more than just designing how letters would appear, but also how. The metal cast had to be strong enough to withstand the force of a printing press but not so hard that it destroyed the paper it was going on. In Gutenberg’s case, he “formulate[ed] his own alloy of tin and lead” (66) that was strong and had a low melting point. Borsuk then explains the complicated process of creating the stamps for the movable type, which was a lot to take in. With this page-long explanation, I realized the convenience of modern screens, keyboards, and printers. Gone are the days of arduous labor that required people to handcraft a single letter and put their full weight into pressing those handcrafted stamps onto handcrafted paper with an ink that was also made by hand. I think because of our disconnect with the labor that goes into the crafting of a book, in addition to its more automated route of creation, the path to fetishization of the book becomes easier.
Hello Allea,
You pointed out the physical elements that needed to be considered in the development of print. It makes me think about how the technologies we use for writing and print today have stemmed from the technology before it. You talk about the convenience of our technology today, and as I’m typing on my laptop I think about something like a typewriter, which I think more closely resembles the Gutenberg press. These two things are related, even if they seem far apart, and even have similar issues, like the amount of pressure needed to press down on letters for them to register on the device they’re a part of.
Hey Allea,
Your post was great, I just wish I could let you know in a different font that encapsulates my full emotion. I liked your description of the lengthy process necessary for font choice, which puts a perspective on our ease nowadays. It’s nice how we have more freedom, but also, as you said, we don’t really consider why we have this freedom, and then probably take it for granted. The word choice fetishization is super interesting to me, as yes, I agree we can bring more attention to the book, but also not so much to what compiles it, which still is the book. Though that’s not to say font doesn’t matter nowadays, it’s just a bit overlooked. Never, though, would I overlook Papyrus or Comic Sans…perhaps there’s an ulterior tale under your words.
Hi Allea,
I feel like we touched on some similar points in both of our posts! I also noted how Gutenberg wasn’t the first to print with movable type. Acknowledging that doesn’t make his invention of his printing press any less important. He still revolutionized books in the western world. But as Americans, we focus so much on European history and inventions that we tend to overlook, or purposefully ignore, the creations of non-white cultures. Onto your second point, I do think that we tend to play it safe with fonts nowadays. I am not an expert in typography, but I do make an effort to use fun fonts when I can. Otherwise, I just use Times New Roman for everything. But every font was made by someone. With intent that most of us can’t even begin to imagine. Overall, the bookmaking process has become easier, and that’s a good thing overall.
Hey Allea,
I think your blog provides a good historical overview of the development of books. I find the contrast between the laborious manual work that had to be invested in books and our current approach to fonts and text production in general particularly interesting and important.
Hey Allea, I really enjoyed your post. I never thought about how much work went into making just one font. The part about Gutenberg having to invent the alloy and the molds really made me pause for a moment. Nowadays we just pick a font from a list, but back then it was a huge effort. I also liked how you pointed out that this distance makes it easier for us to treat books as special objects without remembering all the work that once went into them.
Hi Allea,
I liked how you said at the end that it’s easier to fetishize books because we are so distant from the physical labor and processes of the book. Do you think though if we were more aware and in the process of book making, would that make us value it more or less because of the time and energy it takes to make one book or are we currently romanizing the book making process without the technology we have now?