 
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Sender: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:13:17 -0600 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
If it's not smaller, and wasn't intended to save paper, why use it in place
of a more readable type? I'm nearly finished reading my copy and found it
difficult. Had to sit in a really good light, and it was tiring to read more
than a few pages at a time.
Tim Champlin
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Typeface for Autobi
> >For a good contrast, use your computer's stock of typefaces to set the
> >same
>>three or four lines of Roman (not italic or bold) in Garamond, Century
>>Schoolbook or Bookman Old Style, and Times Roman.
>
> That made an excellent demonstration. The Garamond does look like it's
> smaller than the others, so that explains why I've read and heard so often
> about the small type in the autobiography -- and why I believed it myself.
>
> -- Bob G.
|
|
|
