PDA

View Full Version : Felici book on typography?


terrie
07-23-2005, 12:41 PM
Someone (Cristen, I think) mentioned the "new" magazine Layers (used to be Mac Design Magazine) and I picked it up at MicroCenter when I was buying a UPS (figured that some of the problems with both my RAM and harddrives might be due to the unusual power hits we'd had)...

Anyway...the premier issue was pretty good--covers pretty much all of the Adobe apps)--and I'm thinking of subscribing...here's the url:

http://www.layersmagazine.com/


Scott Kelby (the editor) has a column on the last page of the mag and mentioned The Complete Manual of Typography (James Felici ISBN 0321127307) and I was wondering if anyone knew about it and what you think of it...

Terrie

Michael Rowley
07-23-2005, 02:02 PM
Terrie:

and mentioned The Complete Manual of Typography (James Felici ISBN 0321127307) and I was wondering if anyone knew about it

I've got it, and think it is first rate and very up to date.

terrie
07-23-2005, 02:24 PM
Thanks...

Terrie

donmcc
07-23-2005, 05:06 PM
I've got it as well. I think it from Adobe Press. Excellent coverage of Typographic basics ... it could be a text for a Typography class in a Graphic Design program. Easier to understand than Bringhurst, covering a lot of the same material, but with more illustrations.

A worthwhile purchase.

Don McCahill

terrie
07-25-2005, 02:06 PM
Cool...that's 2 for 2...will definitely take a browse at Amazon for it...

Thanks!

Terrie

Michael Rowley
07-25-2005, 02:35 PM
Terrie:

that's 2 for 2

I should say that Felici's book covers most points that are recognized by typographers as important. There aren't really any surprise judgements—it isn't that sort of book—, but few omissions either.

I got my copy from Amazon, but it's published by Peachpit Press (which hasn't realized that peaches have stones), although it's described as an 'Adobe Press Book', and it's in rather nice Perpetua. The ISBN is 0-321-12730-7.

terrie
07-26-2005, 12:39 PM
Thanks Michael...it's not too pricey at Amazon--$28.35...

Terrie

Molly/CA
08-10-2005, 09:42 AM
The last two Peachpit books I've had (not for a while) fell apart almost before I opened them. How's the binding on your Felici?

MW says "pit" is fine for the stone of a drupe, or as they put it, of a "drupaceous fruit." I've never noticed any discrimination against "pit" in botanical or horticulural usage. Must be a Brit thing. Must check my Horley cookbook. Or Return of the King, at the end where the magic-dusted plum tree is grown and producing.

Michael Rowley
08-10-2005, 10:35 AM
Molly:

How's the binding on your Felici?

It's 'perfect-bound' and in a large format, so I don't expect it'll stand up to much.

'Pit' is described as 'mainly US' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. What or who is 'MW' (not Molly something, I take it)?

ElyseC
08-10-2005, 04:39 PM
What or who is 'MW' (not Molly something, I take it)?Just guessing here, but perhaps Merriam Webster, a well known dictionary here.

Michael Rowley
08-11-2005, 08:02 AM
Elyse:

perhaps Merriam Webster

A well-known name in the UK too, although it's usually known just as 'Webster's', usually, but not always, meaning the 'big' Webster, i.e. the 3rd edition. I don't think we think of Noah Webster's original dictionary.

Stephen Owades
08-11-2005, 08:35 PM
Elyse:

perhaps Merriam Webster

A well-known name in the UK too, although it's usually known just as 'Webster's', usually, but not always, meaning the 'big' Webster, i.e. the 3rd edition. I don't think we think of Noah Webster's original dictionary.The term "Webster" is not a legal trademark in the US, so many publishers have used that term in the name of their dictionaries. Merriam-Webster claims theirs is the "real" Webster's dictionary, tracing its origins to Noah Webster's original. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/faq.htm (http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/faq.htm) for more details. They also maintain a good American dictionary on-line at http://www.merriam-webster.com, which includes a useful pronounciation guide.

Michael Rowley
08-12-2005, 07:48 AM
Stephen:

Merriam-Webster claims theirs is the "real" Webster's dictionary

No one in the UK would doubt it, but you've got to remember that Noah Webster didn't make any impact in England, although many of his ideas were regarded as sound in some quarters.

Molly/CA
08-21-2005, 11:05 AM
What or who is 'MW' (not Molly something, I take it)?

Merriam-Webster, whose New Collegiate Dictionary is UC Press's standard for what words we're allowed to use, other than the ones UCP***'s staff make up, of course.

They have a good website and I've gotten much more than my money's worth out of my $25 a year subscription to the Unabridged (you get more Word games with the subscription, too). But they're terrible on biology or food words and concepts, unclear at best, inaccurate or just plain wrong at worst.