3
This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia] On: 04 October 2014, At: 23:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Visual Communication Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hvcq20 A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring” Nigel Holmes a a Westport, CT Published online: 22 Mar 2011. To cite this article: Nigel Holmes (2011) A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring”, Visual Communication Quarterly, 18:1, 62-63, DOI: 10.1080/15551393.2010.515460 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2010.515460 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring”

  • Upload
    nigel

  • View
    253

  • Download
    5

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring”

This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 04 October 2014, At: 23:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Communication QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hvcq20

A Review of “boring boring boring boringboring boring boring”Nigel Holmes aa Westport, CTPublished online: 22 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Nigel Holmes (2011) A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boringboring”, Visual Communication Quarterly, 18:1, 62-63, DOI: 10.1080/15551393.2010.515460

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2010.515460

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring”

Visual Communication Quarterly 62 Volume 18 January—March 2011

Review by Nigel Holmes

To quote from the publisher’s announcement at the back

of this book, boring boring boring boring boring boring

boring (which, from now on, I’m calling boring+)

“…is a multi-platform, multi-modal,

cross-bred work of art. That’s art school

talk for ‘available in different formats.’

We guarantee that if you are bored by

one version of the book, you’ll be equally

bored by any of the following:”

The perfect-bound version; the E-book; the audio ver-

sion; the website; the poster version.

In other words, boring+ is determined to be seen,

somehow. And that’s a good idea these days with

traditional book publishing up sh*t’s creek (to use one

of the many four-letter words liberally sprinkled here,

all without asterisks, of course).

Some of the formats offered are free, so you can see

for yourself before buying the perfect-bound version.

And you might want to have a look, because a book

that tries so hard on every page to grab your attention

is, after a while, really hard to read.

The nonlinear story concerns 19-year-old art students

(and other characters) and their exploits with drugs

and sex, all told in language that probably reflects the

way the characters speak, but which becomes, like,

taxing, after a bit, you know? Whatever.

Throughout the book, the main characters’ names

appear in their own individual font. If this were the only

typographic tic, it would be fun. Among the art students,

Adelaide gets a nice soft italic serif with a long swash on

the first A, and PuNK mixes cases and has each letter in

a different chunky font, but none of these little touches

are larger than the regular text face. That’s a nice,

elegant touch, adding just a little color to the text.

But the designer-writer Zach Plague (“A made-up name”)

can’t resist messing about with the layout of most of his

pages, making the book into a sort of homage to Elliott

Earls, or David Carson, although without Carson’s

one-time total disregard for readability. You can read

boring� if you are patient, but it’s hard work. Looking at

the “poster” versions of the book you can see how the

connections between the apparently random typographic

twirls and flourishes on the pages of the bound book

come together to form larger images when you see the

printed 32-page signatures (the “posters”) before they are

folded down to the book’s trim size.

But let’s be constructive. There’s a lot of work in this

book, and I respect that. I actually want to like boring�.

I went to art school. It was a long time ago, but I certainly

recognize the brutal critiques, where I and my tired fellow

students struggled to explain our work in front of the

assembled group, work that was often produced just hours

before the deadline. There was plenty of bull… (add that

“s” word again, if you want) flying around the room. We

were trying to impress our teachers and each other.

Near the end of the book there’s a part designed as a

book-within-a book. On the pages of the paperback you

see photographic reproductions of a smaller hardback

book with the edges of the cover and the thickness of

the book showing. The “inside” book is designed in a

very quiet, gimmick-free, classical manner to bolster the

illusion of the effect. The contrast between this and the

rest of boring� is vivid. It made me want to go back to

have another go at reading the rest of the book again.

Trying to ignore the distractions of the overdesigned

text, I found the writing flowed easily when it was

allowed to. Boring� is well written, but the meaning is

ZZaacchh PPllaagguueeboring boring boring

boring boring boring boring

273 Pages.Chicago, Illinois: Featherproof Books • 2008

$40

The book review editor is Dr. Lawrence Mullen • E-mail: [email protected]

Book Reviews

HVCQ_A_515460.qxp 2/26/11 4:04 PM Page 62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:31

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: A Review of “boring boring boring boring boring boring boring”

Pages 62–63 63 Visual Communication Quarterly

often hidden by postmodern effects. Is this what

happens when a writer designs his or her own book?

Or a designer writes one? The result here is a kind of

art first, and a novel as a secondary idea.

Featherproof Books, a small indie press in Chicago

founded by Zach Dodson (that’s Plague) in 2005, has a

lively website (www.featherproofbooks.com), and many

of the books offered there are worth a look. Some

small, short ones are downloadable and free. They

come with simple folding and stapling instructions. This

is an interesting way to do excerpts from forthcoming

titles, and it’s terrific to see a small press keeping up

with the idea that books are worth producing, pushing

them into new directions and different formats.

Featherproof clearly has a sense of humor: included

on their website is a review of boring� from Print

magazine. It says: “The effect is that of artist’s journal

meets ransom note: the text held hostage by the

design.”

Text held hostage by design, I like that. And it’s ballsy of

Zach Plague (Dodson) to have used it as a blurb for his

book.

But I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and I

look forward to many more experiments from him.

Nigel Holmes lives in Westport, CT and is a memberof this journal’s editorial board. Correspondenceshould be sent to: [email protected]

HVCQ_A_515460.qxp 2/26/11 4:04 PM Page 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia]

at 2

3:31

04

Oct

ober

201

4