Windows?

There are truly only two programs for which I need some version of Windows: CorelDraw and PowerTracks. The latter is a DAW, a simple but useful and well-featured recording app from PG Music. In theory, I could find an acceptable alternate that works in Linux but I’ve yet to be taken with any I’ve tried. I do, of course, have the ubiquitous Audacity installed but it doesn’t do midi and I’m not enamored of the direction its owners are taking it (same with their MuseScore).

I would also need Windows for another PG Music program, the much better known Band in a Box. I admittedly rarely use it anymore (and an up to date version is somewhat pricey) so it’s not that important to me. I’d as soon bang on a cardboard box as use their canned accompaniments (even if they do sound pretty darn good).

But CorelDraw is likely to remain my go-to graphics program. Yes, I can accomplish much of what it does in free Linux apps. LibreOffice Draw, Inkscape, and Krita are all useful. GIMP is really better for working with raster images and I use it quite a bit, but it does not do vectors nor is it particularly good for layout work. I do all my book covers in Corel.

A different Corel program I like to have working is WordPerfect. Not essential by any means, but an alternative to the LibreOffice Writer in which I do most of my word processing. As a straight-forward office suite it has a lot going for it but it’s not really as good for my writing as an author. And, of course, I wouldn’t touch MS Word with a ten-foot keyboard.

I could also mention Notepad++. Although it works sort of okay on Linux under WINE, it’s always seemed a bit balky. I use a simpler plain text editor on Linux these days but do continue with NP++ on Windows. I use it for taking notes, rather than writing code, and I find it quite useful for that. But again, not essential.

Now if only they could get CorelDraw to work with WINE!

Stempel Garamond

Stempel Garamond was first issued by the Stempel foundry almost a hundred years ago as Garamond-Antiqua. It was—and remains—one of the more faithful and attractive revivals of the Garamond typefaces. There have been a number of versions since, clones, reissues, digitalizations. One of the better known would be the free URW++ Garmond No.8, which may be found readily online. It is ‘almost’ an open license font; a publisher needn’t worry about using it for print or embedding it in a PDF. I see it pretty much as a publisher’s starting kit, dependable and usable for pretty much any project.

Incidentally, its italics are based on ones actually designed by Claude Garamond, where many other Garamond typefaces use italics by Robert Granjon, a respected successor of Garamond.

The Garamond Original typeface—a name used by both Bitstream and SoftMaker—is essentially a clone of Stempel. As with Garamond No.8, they lack opentype features for those who want or need them, though SoftMaker does offer separate small caps. That makes up for much. The typeface is included in SoftMaker’s MegaFont collection, which remains a rather good deal.

Not surprisingly, various opentype projects based on Garamond No.8 have popped up over the last couple decades but none have seemed to go much of anywhere. Be that as it may, the versions that are available are quite viable alternatives to commercial Garamonds or the popular EB Garamond and other open license Garamond (or Garamond-like) fonts. Stempel Garamond, under whatever name, is a good choice for anyone producing books.

Arachis Press used versions in all my fantasy novels set among the Mora (the Malvern Trilogy, the Mora Trilogy, etc). We are entirely likely to use Stempel again in books to come. Indeed, we consider it our default for novels.

The Mechanics

My first one-and-a-half novels were written longhand and then typed (yes, on a typewriter). This was not a new process for me; it was pretty much what I used through decades of journalism, writing magazine articles. I was never able to compose directly on a typewriter, as I couldn’t completely organize my words until I saw them on the page. This was even more true with writing poetry.

For a short time, I dabbled with an early standalone word processor, but my first drafts continued to be handwritten (frequently on scrap paper). The computer changed everything. I could move things around as I went. Composition and editing became one seamless process. I switched over almost immediately for everything except poetry. I still sometimes start poems on paper but there, too, the computer is where I now do most of my writing.

The only thing that held me back early on was the need for printed copies. The word processor I used for a while solved that problem, as it typed out pages, even while saving projects to floppy disks. Later on, I was able to copy the files into word processing programs on the computer without too many problems, and invested in a succession of printers. But as I went from submitting printed pages to publishers and agents to publishing on my own, the need for printed copy largely disappeared.

Though my first publishing endeavor was a self-printed and assembled poetry chapbook, using a laser printer. That was pretty much to have copies I could sell at poetry readings. Within a year or so, I switched to a print-on-demand supplier (Lulu) and have stuck with that, both for printing and distribution as Arachis Press.

I knew pretty much nothing about book design, or word processing and/or desktop publishing applications when I started on the computer. There was a lot of learning from my mistakes as I went along! In those early days, I wrote mostly in the WordPerfect program that had come installed on one of my first PCs. In fact, several Corel applications were bundled on that machine, including CorelDraw, which remains my go-to for design. All my covers are created there and even one ‘coffee table’ book. But I didn’t stick forever with WordPerfect; it’s a great office suite, especially for offices that still use a lot of paper (like lawyers), but only so-so for writing (though I would still take it over Word).

What replaced it was OpenOffice, which is not only excellent for writing and editing, but is also a fairly decent desktop publishing program—more than adequate for a typical novel or even a book of poems. I still like OpenOffice but fairly recently switched to the spin-off LibreOffice, mostly because it allows me to access opentype features in my typefaces. That’s handy but, admittedly, not essential, and OpenOffice does seem a tad more stable, so either would really be usable for me. To be sure, another attraction of both versions of the application is is that they are free. Unfortunately, although they share a file format, they do not create identical projects when I move a file from one to the other. Page count, spacing, etc. may vary some, so I stick to LibreOffice now, at least for the final print-ready versions of my books.

Both also produce perfectly good PDF versions for sending to a printer or for offering as ebooks. Neither is quite adequate for producing an EPUB I would consider distributing or selling, though both offer conversion. For that, I plug a formatted LibreOffice file into Calibre, another good free program. It’s not perfect but I’ve learned enough to fix most problems that pop up.

Incidentally, I’ll mention here that I do the bulk of my note-keeping in Notepad++. That is another quite useful free program, and one with enough features it could actually be used for writing drafts. Indeed, the only thing it really lacks is automatic ‘smart quotes,’ and those can be added with code as one goes along. That’s as simple as double-clicking on a panel I keep open. Italics aren’t available but that’s not a big deal. I probably overuse them anyway and one could use one symbol or another to aid in a search-and-replace when transferring the file for formatting.

My purpose here was to provide a quick view of the mechanics of my writing and publishing, the methods and programs I’ve found useful along the way. I’ll not go on about either typography or my writing process; I’ve done that elsewhere and undoubtedly will again. I (and maybe you) can certainly continue with the applications and methods I have listed. Would a dedicated desktop publishing application be a useful addition? Perhaps, but I’ve found no real reason to add one. InDesign—aside from being expensive—is very much overkill for me. So is the free Scribus. Were I laying out something heavy on graphics, a magazine perhaps, it might be different, but for now I get by quite well with the programs I have settled on and become familiar with. They serve my needs.

Busorama

Busorama was a typeface that had a period of popularity in the last century, perhaps most notably as a titling face on a number of speculative fiction novels. For better of worse, it remains evocative of that period; I would think at least thrice before using it today, even ironically.

Although the original commercial version remains available for purchase, there are various clones out there, including at least one of them open license. Here are a couple covers that used Busorama:

 

Times Replacements

In the early days of digital type, one found a number of typefaces billed as ‘Times replacements,’ some free, some not. A few were simply clones of the ubiquitous Times New Roman, such as the Nimbus Roman made free by URW++. As good a choice as any if one feels an actual need for Times NR.

Then there were those that had no relationship to Times, but whose designers hoped would unseat it as the go-to font. Adobe’s Utopia was an excellent (and free) alternative, but did not catch on widely—though I personally am quite fond of it! Times NR, as most know, is better suited to newspapers (originally designed for the Times of London) yet continues to be used in ways that are not really ideal.

And since it is a standard of sorts, we have a third group of replacements: typefaces that are metrically identical to Times, that will fill the same space on a page, when used at the same size and weight. At the same time, they should ideally look better, without the cramped appearance one can get with Times New Roman, especially on wider pages. Three early offerings that have held up are Linux Libertine, Gentium, and Liberation Serif (aka Tinos). All three of these are free and more-or-less open license (you can definitely use them in your printed book).

None look much like Times. Liberation is close to being a ‘humanist’ slab serif. I can not say I’m fond of its somewhat squared-off forms (which may have taken some inspiration from Zapf’s Melior). It looks okay and is pretty legible, maybe working better on line than in print and certainly an improvement on Times in most applications. Liberation Serif is included in the LibreOffice suite and with various flavors of the Linux OS. Use it on a web site? Sure. Write a book draft with it? It could work. Print a book? Not my first (nor even second) choice. Maybe for something nonfiction or an instruction manual. You might even get away with subbing it for Times in that term paper! :)

The award-winning Gentium has been one of SIL’s premiere free, open license fonts for some time. Unlike Liberation, it is very much intended for print use. To my eyes, it has something of a Goudy-esque appearance. That’s not from any careful analysis of the letter shapes, just how it looks to me. Gentium is sometimes described as ‘calligraphic.’ It is not an ostentatious typeface but has a charm to it, and could certainly work in a book. It does set rather closely, however, so make sure to give it some room. Readabilty is quite good but not quite on, say, a Garamond level. Nor does it have the legibility of something like Century Schoolbook—or the Liberation mentioned above. I have never printed a novel in Gentium but have used it for a couple books of poetry. The Plus version has loads of opentype features available—always desirable—as well as multiple language applicability.

Much of what I said of Gentium is also true of Linux Libertine. Libertine is a bit more stolid, closer to typical book text. The design is akin to such mid-20th Century neo-humanist typefaces as Palatino and Berling and especially Minion—definitely suitable for setting the text in a novel. Aesthetic opinions are a tad divided on the design. Some, I think are simply biased against any free font! I would say it is every bit as good as many issued by major foundries. And, of course, there is no ‘best’ typeface, even for a specific use. Libertine is readable enough and fairly ‘invisible,’ making it a good all-around choice. I’ll admit it is what I use to read ebooks. The latest version also offers most of the opentype features we might desire, adding to its versatility.

Keep in mind, these three typefaces follow the metrics of Times NR, which means a bit narrow and closely set. Gentium or Libertine might suit a double-column layout in a magazine quite nicely, where another font could appear ‘loose.’ Also keep in mind that you don’t need that Times compatibility most of the time. But these are now time-tested typefaces and one can’t really go wrong (well, too wrong) using them.

Cormorant for Text?

Cormorant is a popular open license typeface that has been available for nearly a decade now. It can be described as Garamond-like but is based on no historic model. The shapes may tend more toward Jannon’s than Garamond’s. That is of little concern of itself, but some might feel its look is a bit too showy for everyday use.

The original Coromorant, released in a number of useful styles and weights, was described as a display font. That is, it is best used at larger sizes, like twenty points or more. To be sure, it could be used smaller but its look at typical text sizes of ten to twelve points might prove disappointing. That has not prevented it from being utilized in just that role.

So, Cormorant Garamond came along with a bit of redrawing to work better at smaller sizes. Whether it is completely successful in this would have to be decided by the end users, but it definitely is more successful as a text typeface than the original version. One could use both in one print publication, Cormorant for titling, Cormorant Garamond for body text. I’ve yet to try it out myself, admittedly; if the right sort of project came along, I certainly would, but I’m not sure if it has quite the readability I would want for a novel.

We mustn’t forget those other versions available. The Upright is, in essence, an upright italic. It, I have used in small projects. The Infant version could, I suppose, be dropped into a more sophisticated children’s book. I don’t know what the Unicase is good for. Maybe not for anything I’ll ever design!

Then there is a matching sans, available: Ysabeau, also in a variety of weights and styles, and likewise free and open license. I have found it quite a bit more useful than Cormorant, as a stand-alone typeface, but the two will match up well too in print. For that matter, Ysabeau could work as a titling font with a number of old style serifs, or modern neo-humanist ones, for that matter.

I would discourage no one from trying out and using Cormorant, in any of its forms. Simply be aware there are other useful open license typefaces out there, ones that don’t offer as much ‘wow’ on first look, that might be as well or better suited to your needs.

Charter Member

In the early days of the personal computer, type designer Matthew Carter created the Charter typeface for Bitstream, his company at the time. It has proven to be a successful and lasting design. Originally, it was not created with screen use in mind but, rather, printing with the low resolution printers of the time (as was Adobe’s Utopia and another Bitstream offering, Deja Vu aka Vera). However, it works quite well as a digital display. I’d say it looks better than some designed specifically for that purpose (including Carter’s later Georgia).

Bitstream gave away rights to Charter early on (as they did with Deja Vu), making it free to use for most purposes. One can find various free downloads of Charter in both truetype and opentype formats, as well as a commercial version with more features. There is also X-Charter, which adds more opentype features, and Charis from SIL.

Charis is sort of Charter; that is, it does not derive directly from the original typeface but is a redrawn clone of it. The two look pretty much identical (there are subtle differences and Charis has wider line spacing) but Charis adds in support for more languages, as well as phonetic symbols. These are things I do not need personally but others might. What Charis does offer me is a range of useful opentype features. That is why it is the version of Charter I use myself.

Use for what? It is my ‘utility font’ on my computer, for notes and information and such. For some time I used the excellent Sitka (also a Matthew Carter design) for this, but it is a Microsoft proprietary typeface and I decided I did not want to depend on anything without an open license. All the more so were I to use it in a book! I have published one novel set in Charis, the science-fiction time travel tale ‘When Man Was Young.’ It looks fine to me and I do feel its classy but no-nonsense appearance is suited to SF (as well as nonfiction).

This brings us to Adobe’s Source Serif, also an open license typeface and one with a considerable resemblance to Charter. This is largely due to both drawing from the same Eighteenth Century type designs of Pierre-Simon Fournier. That Charter did influence Source directly, as well, I have little doubt. One could certainly substitute one for the other without most readers noticing. Source is a little more oriented toward screen use; however, I have used it without problem for one novel (also science fiction), ‘Alienese.’

Charter/Charis may be as close to being a ‘desert island’ font for me as any I could name. It’s not my first choice for writing drafts—either fiction or poetry—but it would work well enough. Though some genres might call for a different look, it certainly is acceptable for printing books. Charis is available for download both from SIL International and through Google Fonts.