Re: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

[Peter Schaffter]

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Izma <address@hidden>
Date: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 08:36:49PM -0000, Ted Harding wrote:

> > 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.

In my experience as a typesetter, I only once had the opportunity to
work with an author who was willing to alter his text in order to assist
with typography and design.  The results were beautiful to look at, and
textually lucid.  But it only happened once.
 
> 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.

Very much IMHO--how important is it that credit be distributed for both
the art and the craft of a book?  What I'm wondering is: is not this
notion of "credit" relatively contemporary?  To use an obviously
out-of-date analogy, how important is it to know the names of those
apprentices and craftsmen who painted the backgounds for The Tres Riches
Heures of Duke DuBarry?  Working for other people, I've typeset quite a
few design "award winners," but  it never occured to me that I deserved
credit for my part in producing those winners.  (Again, this is just IMHO.)

> Currently,
> though, typesetters don't engage the content in much detail at
> all,

Very true.  Perhaps that's because increasingly, there are fewer and
fewer typesetters left.  I lived through the transition from computer
phototypesetting to "desktop publishing."  It was apparent, during the
transition, that typesetting and typography were going the way of the
dinosaur.

> 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.

Ditto that.  GNU software put me in touch with the tools that allow me
to continue to behave like a professional typesetter.  My appeciation
knows no limits.

--
Peter Schaffter