Every so often, I'll use a different font. I do so in order to try and convey the mood of that part of the story, or just to convey a character's tone of voice. Sometimes I'll do a part in italics, and sometimes I'll use bold to highlight something important.
I've been criticized for this by a few people. One person told me it was a gimmick and that readers would roll their eyes at my artsy-fartsy attempt to be nouveau. Another said that not only would most publishers not take kindly to such disparity in the work, but a number of conversion programs to get my work into "printable" fashion would be unable to handle such an overload. Regarding the first charge, I don't go traditional, so that critique doesn't matter much to me. Regarding the second...he was right. Putting in several different fonts, especially the crazier ones I prefer at times(Parchment, Bradley Hand ITC, and Goudy Stout) has proven either more costly to add in or downright impossible as the formatter didn't have them available. That has proven frustrating as I try to get my readers the original vision of my work.
So why do I even try doing such nonsense? Because there are certain things that the written word simply doesn't convey very well. Yes, ours is a written medium, but most readers translate that writing into a movie of some kind in their head. Some fonts better convey the tone the author is going for. For example, Bradley Hand ITC is a very scratchy feeling font, so it goes well with a more visceral voice. Parchment is regal, so the tone it conveys is one of haughtiness and authority. Using these fonts give the reader a better sense of what is going on sometimes than just writing, "The demon's rumbly voice was primal." For that matter, using the font allows me to leave out certain descriptors, like the voice belonging to a demon, and lets the reader pick up on that on his or her own.
Perhaps I'm just too caught up in my own pretension in font usage, but I really do feel that, when used properly and sparingly(sparingly being the key word...using them too often will irritate the reader), they can give more depth to the tone than simple descriptors can. What do you think?
I've been criticized for this by a few people. One person told me it was a gimmick and that readers would roll their eyes at my artsy-fartsy attempt to be nouveau. Another said that not only would most publishers not take kindly to such disparity in the work, but a number of conversion programs to get my work into "printable" fashion would be unable to handle such an overload. Regarding the first charge, I don't go traditional, so that critique doesn't matter much to me. Regarding the second...he was right. Putting in several different fonts, especially the crazier ones I prefer at times(Parchment, Bradley Hand ITC, and Goudy Stout) has proven either more costly to add in or downright impossible as the formatter didn't have them available. That has proven frustrating as I try to get my readers the original vision of my work.
So why do I even try doing such nonsense? Because there are certain things that the written word simply doesn't convey very well. Yes, ours is a written medium, but most readers translate that writing into a movie of some kind in their head. Some fonts better convey the tone the author is going for. For example, Bradley Hand ITC is a very scratchy feeling font, so it goes well with a more visceral voice. Parchment is regal, so the tone it conveys is one of haughtiness and authority. Using these fonts give the reader a better sense of what is going on sometimes than just writing, "The demon's rumbly voice was primal." For that matter, using the font allows me to leave out certain descriptors, like the voice belonging to a demon, and lets the reader pick up on that on his or her own.
Perhaps I'm just too caught up in my own pretension in font usage, but I really do feel that, when used properly and sparingly(sparingly being the key word...using them too often will irritate the reader), they can give more depth to the tone than simple descriptors can. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment