🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <l9kqsnINN7kb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.211117.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>, dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
 
> |> Someone tell Victor not to use
> |> textured paper with Baskerville or any other Modern. Doesn't
> |> anybody care about paper anymore? Yeesh. All my design books
> |> devote a chapter or more to paper.)
 
> You've got to be joking? (For one, Baskerville is not a modern :-)
> Do you think authors have anything to say about the choice of paper?
> I think I was lucky that they let me veto the first cover design.
> (But the letter that came with the second design told me between the
> lines that 'we will take this one whether you like it or not'.)

Well, most type books classify Baskerville as a transitional, but
it shares enough characteristics with a modern that for the
purposes of paper selection, one can call it one.

But somebody at A-W should have known not to use that paper with
Baskerville (or maybe A-W doesn't care about how its books look).
 
> The closer you get to production of the book, the less an author can do
> about it.

I've heard of authors who've requested and gotten acid free
paper. Personally, I wouldn't care about whether a book on some
piece of software is going to disintegrate in twenty years or
not.
 
> If I would have had any say in the choice of paper I would have
> opted for parchment, in real leather binding :-)

Probably would have taken Baskerville even worse. Today's smooth
papers are largely an outgrowth of the demands of the
transitionals and moderns as well as certain illustrative
printing processes.


-dh

Don Hosek                  
dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu  
Quixote Digital Typography 
714-621-1291