# Any new standard for font and size in printed books?



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Is Times Roman 12 still the standard for POD books? 

Times Roman is so 90s. Can I use something else e.g. Minion Pro or Baskerville?

What is your go-to font and size for print? May I ask why you chose that?

Do you keep the same font across all the genres you write in?

TIA.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

There's no standard at all. Pick something you like that has high readability. My books use Adobe Garamond Premiere Pro 12 pt. and I love the way it looks.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Monique said:


> There's no standard at all. Pick something you like that has high readability. My books use Adobe Garamond Premiere Pro 12 pt. and I love the way it looks.


Thank you. Several people have mentioned Garamond. I'll have to look into that as well. I used to use Garamond for my business correspondences but didn't think to us it in my books. Thanks!


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Times should not be used for books. It's a very narrow font, designed specifically for newspaper columns and that's the reason major publishers don't use it - it causes "rivers."

I list popular book fonts here:

http://bookcoverexpress.com/articles/the-fontfeed/

And a bit off topic, but this, too is about font choice: http://bookcoverexpress.com/articles/text-legibility-readability/


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Once I found Minion Pro, I never changed again. Minion Pro all the way.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I go for Garamond Premiere Pro myself, however, I hate the capital Q. (It is so swashy -- okay for a display font, but if you have a proper noun starting with Q in your body text... ugh!)

I love Palatino, but didn't use it for a long time because I didn't have a copy with all the features. However, now that I've tracked down a whole family of Palatino fonts (including real small caps!) I'll probably start using that.

As for size: I recently read that font sizes are drifting upward (perhaps because the population is aging?) I recall someone recently declaring that 14pt is the new 12pt.

I tend to go for smaller sizes. (I think 11pt Garamond was a really common choice a decade ago -- but Times being small, 12pt Times is probably a similar size.)  I may go with 12pt Palatino next.  I'll wait until I've looked at it a bit first, though.

Camille


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> I tend to go for smaller sizes. (I think 11pt Garamond was a really common choice a decade ago -- but Times being small, 12pt Times is probably a similar size.) I may go with 12pt Palatino next. I'll wait until I've looked at it a bit first, though.


My last book I used Minion Pro 11.5 throughout.


----------



## Robert A Michael (Apr 30, 2012)

Another feature to watch for is the spacing or padding between lines. If you are using a 12-pt type with long descenders (the parts of the letters that go below the baseline), sometimes it pays to have your spacing set at "exactly 14 pt" which gives the letters more room to breathe and not accidentally connect with the ascenders of the letters on the line below (you got your 'p' in my 't!'). The white space also reduces eye strain and line confusion for readers, but often adds to the pages of the book and thus the cost.

And I agree about the rivers. 

Now, if you are sending your manuscript off to agents, TNR is often required. Along with a laundry list of other formatting (almost as bad as Smashwords).

I like Garamond Pro. It comes with any Adobe product. Purchased separately it is pricey (you might as well buy one Adobe's products).

Caslon Pro and Century Schoolbook are great as well, depending on the genre in which you are writing.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

I am in the process of setting up my paperback. I chose Garamond. It looks so neat and tidy to me.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

12 always seems too big to me. 10.5 - 11 reads better, I think. Another vote for Garamond. And I like Georgia.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Catchy said:


> Times should not be used for books. It's a very narrow font, designed specifically for newspaper columns and that's the reason major publishers don't use it - it causes "rivers."
> 
> I list popular book fonts here:
> 
> ...


I checked your list, it's about Book COVER fonts, not text fonts, right?

At the moment, I use Garamond 11, 11.5, or 12. I've been told that leading should be 115% of the font size (EXACTLY, as Robert A. Michael says). I get my advice from the Createspace forum.

But I would be happy to try other fonts.


----------



## MaggieBloom (Jan 10, 2014)

My three oldest books are Times New Roman, 12pt (which looks too big to me now). I've switched to Georgia and Century for my newer work, 10-11 pt. It looks better, I think.


----------



## jacklusted (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm using Georgia 9pt for my first book, small font size is due to the size of the book. It's 112,000 words/360 pages. Bigger font would make it too expensive to really do as a paperback.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

I just redid all my books recently so that they all use Book Antiqua 12pt. When I went with a smaller font I had my readers complain it was hard to read, since this change I have not gotten those complaints. I originally picked this one because that is what the CreateSpace template uses. I also add 6pt spacing between paragraphs in the print edition, again to address readability issues.


----------



## Tim_A (May 25, 2013)

I use Minion Pro 11pt, 1.15x line spacing. Looks gorgeous.


----------



## Lindy Moone (Oct 19, 2012)

Tim, is that what I'm seeing in the sample for your "Wanted" paperback? Minion Pro 11 pt, 1.15 line spacing? Because it is very easy to read without being showy. Really like it! Now, where do I get it and is it pricey?  I'd like to try that for my troll charity anthology. Maybe even my Fogland story.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

I'm a fan of Garamond 12 pt. and just laid out my 8th book in that. My eyesight's getting fuzzy, so anything smaller is a pain to read, even with cheater glasses.

While other fonts may look good and be just as readable as Garamond, many of them will increase page count substantially and thus reduce your profit margin per book sold. I tried a couple different ones when setting up my current book and the page count when from 306 to 372.  

The one thing I don't like about Garamond is that words in italics look really squished together.


----------



## Tim_A (May 25, 2013)

Lindy Moone said:


> Tim, is that what I'm seeing in the sample for your "Wanted" paperback? Minion Pro 11 pt, 1.15 line spacing? Because it is very easy to read without being showy. Really like it! Now, where do I get it and is it pricey?  I'd like to try that for my troll charity anthology. Maybe even my Fogland story.


Not sure - the only preview I can see is from the Kindle edition, and I don't know what font they use for that. The p/back preview for either of the Socko books is *definitely* Minion Pro 11/1.15.

It's an Adobe font, about €35 per face (regular, bold, italic...) from fonts.com. Fontsgeek.com have a free version, but I don't know what the difference is. I suspect it's cut down to some degree - fewer symbols etc, compared to the full version. Good enough to try out, anyway.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

What does anyone thing of Garamond 14pt for a children's read-aloud illustrated story? Is 14 pt too big? I was told that children's books need a larger type.


----------



## Connie Chastain (Jun 25, 2011)

I use Georgia for my print books, 10 point on 13 point  lines. It was designed by Matthew Carter for Microsoft, and originally intended to look good on a computer screen. But apparently the criteria for that also makes it a good print font. I recently read about the development of that typeface; very interesting. I use various other typefaces for front matter, chapter headings, and other interior printing, but Georgia for blocks of text. I'm very pleased with it.


----------



## Adrian Howell (Feb 24, 2013)

I've been using Calibri 11 for my body text, and Garamond for my title, chapter titles and TOC.
I don't know why. That was just how it came together when I used CS's word template. But I like Calibri's simplicity.


----------



## Lindy Moone (Oct 19, 2012)

Tim_A said:


> Not sure - the only preview I can see is from the Kindle edition, and I don't know what font they use for that. The p/back preview for either of the Socko books is *definitely* Minion Pro 11/1.15.
> 
> It's an Adobe font, about €35 per face (regular, bold, italic...) from fonts.com. Fontsgeek.com have a free version, but I don't know what the difference is. I suspect it's cut down to some degree - fewer symbols etc, compared to the full version. Good enough to try out, anyway.


Thanks, Tim. And you were right; I was looking at the Kindle version (duh), but I love the Socko books. I'll check it out!


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

If you are going to print or high-resolution eInk-type displays (or for high-resolution displays such as Apple's Retina Display):


Always use a serif font. It looks nicer to the eyes and helps them flow over the words better.
11.5-12 points is the industry standard for font size for a hardcover book. Going up or down from there makes very subtle changes that can still have a significant effect on the number of pages being printed.
The font family Garamond was used for the American edition of the _Harry Potter_ series. If you want an example, open one of those and read it.
When choosing a font and point size, aim for the look you want.
_HOWEVER_, print about four sample pages-scaled and trimmed to the proper page size-and have friends and family read it and see if they find it comfortable.
Older readers will have different visual issues than younger readers. Consider your audience.
Younger readers need large fonts because they don't have the skill to keep their eyes locked on a line of text.
Older readers need larger fonts in the event they lost their reading glasses and their arms have gotten too short. 


Reflective displays, such as eInk or paper, generally look better with serif fonts. Always print a page to paper to judge for yourself.

If going for digital or low-resolution displays (such as a computer screen looking at a web page like you are doing right now):


Use a sans-serif font, such as the Verdana (used for this forum) or Arial. Arial was/is the standard sans-serif font used for the internet.
Serif fonts look fuzzy on low DPI displays, even to people with perfect vision. It becomes painful to read after a short while.
Serif fonts on an _emissive_ display-one that has a strong backlight like a tablet or laptop computer-will also look fuzzy, particularly at smaller font sizes.

If you really want to use a serif font, you should select a higher font size so the serifs on the font won't make the letters look out of focus.
I use a serif font for my blog and set it at 14 to avoid fuzziness.
Except for large print such as chapter titles, it is relatively useless to set a font size on an ebook. The reader will change that size to something more comfortable for his- or herself. It's smarter just to go with the "normal" or "middle" size-roughly 12 point-if you want to specify it.

Most ebook readers have special fonts that were created to look nice on their respective eInk displays. Don't ignore that.

*Edit:* Earlier I stated that 11.5 was the industry standard size for print in a hardcover book-stated to me by a book manufacturer. I believe that should read 11.5 to 12. (It's going to have to vary depending on the font family chosen for the printing.)


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> The one thing I don't like about Garamond is that words in italics look really squished together.


This is the reason I've decided to abandon Garamond in my current book; I need to use italics, but the version of Garamond that's bundled with the Mac OS has italics that are hideously distorted and unspeakably ugly.

Time for Baskerville, methinks...


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Oh, Baskerville looks very nice.  The Q still looks a bit swashy, but not so bad as Garamond I think.  I'm sure there's a "pro" version out there. I'll have to hunt it down.

For children's books: I used to like a variant of Bookman.  It has a round, schoolbook look,if I remember right.

BTW: Wasn't Georgia originally designed to be a web font?  I guess most of those are properly hinted and made suitable for print these days, though. I do like the large x-height on it.

Camille


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Several of you have used the phrase, 'depending on your type of book.' I can see where sci-fi might require a different look than a sweet romance or a mystery/thriller. So, here's my question. Which fonts do you feel is better for which types of books?


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Sapphire said:


> Several of you have used the phrase, 'depending on your type of book.' I can see where sci-fi might require a different look than a sweet romance or a mystery/thriller. So, here's my question. Which fonts do you feel is better for which types of books?


Yeah, so I don't get that. Why would it matter? I think you want a clean, easy to read font regardless of genre.


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

JRHenderson said:


> This is the reason I've decided to abandon Garamond in my current book; I need to use italics, but the version of Garamond that's bundled with the Mac OS has italics that are hideously distorted and unspeakably ugly.


I really agree with you on that one. While I like the look of regular Garamond, I found the italics to be difficult and unpleasant to read. The plain italic in Apple's version of Garamond has a much narrower width of the regular face. Reading it is like hitting a speed bump. There is another italic face for Garamond called Kursiv, which is not so reduced and therefore more readable.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

JanThompson said:


> Is Times Roman 12 still the standard for POD books?


I don't think it ever was a standard, or if it was it shouldn't have been. TNR is not only an outdated font, it was never designed for print. It looks lame enough on a screen, where it was meant to be displayed. It shouldn't be in an e-book--or worse, on the cover.



> What is your go-to font and size for print? May I ask why you chose that?


When I did a print edition of my first book, I did a lot of research. The Book Designer said that oldstyle fonts are ideal for print, and those are identified by things like the narrow bridge at the top and bottom of the lowercase o being offset from one another. Oldstyle fonts have almost a borderline calligraphic look. I found a page suggesting why Palatino, despite its other strengths, has no place on the printed page. There are arguments to be made for and against many of the popular choices: Garamond for instance is more of a family than a single font, and you'll probably have to pay for a good one.

The Book Designer made mention of an oldstyle font called Bembo, and by coincidence when I was searching fontsquirrel.com for free fonts that might suffice, I found one called Cardo that happens to be a relative of Bembo. So my first book uses Cardo 11pt.

I did however try out a number of font choices and sizes. When I was previewing them, I was using OpenOffice--which I used for formatting the print edition--and it scaled down the print properly to the point where I could get a rough idea of how each font would look in actual size. (I adjusted the zoom so that the display fit my exact page dimensions.) Word isn't so good at that, I think; maybe it tries too hard to maintain readability. Cardo 11pt was the standout because it was readable--in both regular and italic. Other fonts that I thought looked gorgeous, such as Alegreya, ended up having too thin a stroke width. You really need to preview your documents in something that will scale them down with anti-aliasing, just to get an idea how they'll look. Printing a test page probably won't hurt either, if you have a good printer. One advantage of using a pro font, if you go that route, is that usually you should have lots more stroke widths to choose from, so you could always make adjustments that way.



> Do you keep the same font across all the genres you write in?


This is an open question for me. I've held off doing a print edition of my second book, but I'd very much like to. I'm not sure Cardo is the best choice for it though, because it's almost more literary. My first book is a sci-fi but has a longer pace to it, not so much bleeding-edge tech. The second book is a madcap semi-paranormal misadventure, pigeon-holed into urban fantasy for lack of a better category; the more frenetic pace and irreverent attitude of some of the characters cries out for something with a bit more pizzazz, but not too much.

Suffice it to say I've found Cardo works, but I'm open to other ideas for future books.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Sapphire said:


> Several of you have used the phrase, 'depending on your type of book.' I can see where sci-fi might require a different look than a sweet romance or a mystery/thriller. So, here's my question. Which fonts do you feel is better for which types of books?


No, it's not usually like that, you won't find that kind of genre distinctions usually. On covers, yes, but for interiors the divisions are in larger grups: fiction vs. trade nonfiction vs. textbook vs. poetry. Or cheap pulp paperback, jam packed with a small font to get the most words onto a page) vs. elegant collector's edition hard back, where each page is supposed to look like a masterpiece. The same book might have both of those editions. (Classics often have them.)

Children's books, of course, have a few different considerations, which have to do with learning and clarity, as well as the fact that there is so little text on a page, they have the option of all sorts of fancy and strange things. But as you go up in age range, things will regularize on adult standards of design.

Camille


----------



## Tommie Lyn (Dec 7, 2009)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> The one thing I don't like about Garamond is that words in italics look really squished together.


That's the only thing I don't like about Garamond...the italics.

I started out using Garamond 12 until my old computer died. After transferring all my files to a new desktop, I had to make a change to one of my books. I loaded the file into the typesetting software, and lo and behold, Garamond 12 was smaller on that computer...enough smaller that it made a difference in the layout. I experimented and discovered that point size 13 was the same as 12 on my old computer. So now, I use 13. Why? Because I've had readers tell me my books are so easy to read.

I really like Minion Pro, especially the italics. It looks as readable as Garamond, so I might consider switching.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

I think this is all the fonts mentioned so far...I think this will only work for fonts you have installed, but here it goes:

So this is what _ 10pt Garamond_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Garamond_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Garamond_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Times New Roman_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Times New Roman_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Times New Roman_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Baskerville_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Baskerville_ looks like on *your screen*
So this is what _ 14pt Baskerville_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Minion Pro_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Minion Pro_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Minion Pro_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Georgia_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Georgia_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Georgia_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Calibri_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Calibri_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Calibri_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Book Antiqua_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Book Antiqua_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Book Antiqua_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Cardo_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Cardo_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Cardo_ looks like on *your screen*.

So this is what _ 10pt Kursiv_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 12pt Kursiv_ looks like on *your screen*.
So this is what _ 14pt Kursiv_ looks like on *your screen*.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

VydorScope said:


> I think this is all the fonts mentioned so far...I think this will only work for fonts you have installed, but here it goes:


The thing is, we're talking about print fonts, which is a whole different thing.

I do not like to define screen fonts, partly for the reason you mention. Even when you actually embed them in a document, there are unexpected things that happen with different devices. What looks beautiful on one device, or screen size or resolution, looks like crap on another. You have absolutely no control over lakes and rivers with digital, because you have no control of line breaks.

Plus one of the great advantages of digital reading is that it's pure text. The reader can read in the font and size that is most comfortable. The last thing I want to do is make the reader conscious of the formatting by forcing a different size or font on them.

(Yeah, everybody says "but they can override that!" I hate to break it to ya, but much of the time, no they can't. If you don't define it, they can choose what they want. If you do define it, they can modify what you chose, but that's not the same as overriding it. Very often they get stuck with what looks like very poorly formatted text with weird spacing, etc. Because they are modifying a modification.)

So... when it comes to print, absolutely yes, be as persnickety as you want. Make those pages PERFECT. But with screen (web or ebook) don't try to over control.

Camille


----------



## Kristine McKinley (Aug 26, 2012)

wow I had no idea Times New Roman was so disliked. I feel like such a newb for using it in my books :-/ I guess I'll have to replace them one day


----------



## Christopher Gray (Feb 27, 2013)

Sapphire said:


> Several of you have used the phrase, 'depending on your type of book.' I can see where sci-fi might require a different look than a sweet romance or a mystery/thriller. So, here's my question. Which fonts do you feel is better for which types of books?


Goudy old style is a nice, delicate font that I'd like to try one day... it would probably work well for Romance but for my hard-edged science-fiction novel I chose Minion Pro. Previously I had used Caslon Pro.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Kristine McKinley said:


> wow I had no idea Times New Roman was so disliked. I feel like such a newb for using it in my books :-/ I guess I'll have to replace them one day


The only real problem with Times is that it is the default font of most word processors. (There is no reason to hate it, just avoid it.) Therefore, it has the unconscious look and feel of something people print out at home. Home work, rough drafts, shopping lists, letters.

That's really all.

Camille


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Kristine McKinley said:


> wow I had no idea Times New Roman was so disliked. I feel like such a newb for using it in my books :-/ I guess I'll have to replace them one day


If you like Times, use it. I am. And like someone said, it doesnt really matter because the reader can change the font and size to whatever they want. I just checked out the Garamond font and I dont like it very much. No offense everyone.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> Oh, Baskerville looks very nice. The Q still looks a bit swashy, but not so bad as Garamond I think. I'm sure there's a "pro" version out there. I'll have to hunt it down.


Hi Camille. There's a free version of Baskerville on FontSquirrel: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/libre-baskerville

I set my book using 10.5 point Baskerville, and that was a bit too small. I bumped it up to 11pt, which is better, but it still looks a little too delicate and old-fashioned for a college textbook.

I'd like to use Minion or Sabon, but I don't have them and they're rather expensive to buy. So I'm hoping that Crimson will come to my rescue as it's slightly heavier and more modern.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> 12 always seems too big to me. 10.5 - 11 reads better, I think. Another vote for Garamond. And I like Georgia.


I use Garmond 11 pt for the same reason. 12 is too big. 11 looks lovely on the page.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JRHenderson said:


> Hi Camille. There's a free version of Baskerville on FontSquirrel: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/libre-baskerville
> 
> I set my book using 10.5 point Baskerville, and that was a bit too small. I bumped it up to 11pt, which is better, but it still looks a little too delicate and old-fashioned for a college textbook.
> 
> I'd like to use Minion or Sabon, but I don't have them and they're rather expensive to buy. So I'm hoping that Crimson will come to my rescue as it's slightly heavier and more modern.


Thanks, I have Baskerville and Baskerville Old Face. I was talking about a "Pro" font. For the interior of a book in paper, I want a robust feature set. (Fully "hinted" and with small caps designed into the font itself so they are the right weight.) Sometimes you can find a free or cheap font that has these, but usually have you have to buy them.

Don't get me wrong, I have some fabulous free fonts that I use for designs and logos. They are beautiful. But not for body text.

Camille


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Never designed for print? It was designed for The Times, a newspaper in London you might have heard of, hence the name.


It was designed for newspapers, not for books. Newspapers are made up of relatively narrow columns and want the text to be as dense as possible so as to save on the cost of paper. That's why people recommend against it for books.

Be careful of free versions of fonts for body text if they're not from a major house. They may not have all the kerning hints you'll want to make the text easier to read. Also, for ebooks the answer is no font. Do not embed a font. Do not define a font. Set the font size in percentages or ems, not points.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

David S. said:


> Never designed for print? It was designed for _The Times,_ a newspaper in London you might have heard of, hence the name.


I might be thinking of something else, but I was under the impression TNR was based on an existing font but was modified by Microsoft and highly optimized for screen displays. But at any rate it looks terrible in books.


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have some fabulous free fonts that I use for designs and logos. They are beautiful. But not for body text.


Hmmm. I think you may be onto something. I've replaced Baskerville (came with Mac OS) with Crimson (free font) and I like it, it's more readable and more suitable for a modern non-fiction book...

But then I spot a random line of text which-_for no reason at all_-has a slightly bigger gap between itself and the line below. Which doesn't look good.

Mustn't panic. I've still got Palatino (although the boldface is *bold*). And Sabon is on special offer for €104.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> I might be thinking of something else, but I was under the impression TNR was based on an existing font but was modified by Microsoft and highly optimized for screen displays. But at any rate it looks terrible in books.


Yes, the system font that we get in with our computers was optimized (originally) for screen display. It was actually a bit-mapped font in those very early days. Not intended for printing at all, really. That's where it got the reputation, I think.

There have been many generations of font technology since. So every generation since Type 1 has been designed for proper printing. However, you are correct that the ones that come with your computer are still actually optimized for home and office use.

And as Katie said, even the original design was not for books but for newspapers.

There is nothing wrong with using Times. It's just that the visual connotations give it the wrong "look" that most people can't put their fingers on. But it's very subtle, and so it's not likely to be a major problem.

IMHO, the key to choosing a font is to first learn to look at fonts. Just using a more professional book font is not going to make as much difference as the choices you make as a designer. So for those who don't know why Times might be good or bad, odds are switching to Garamond won't make that much difference.

As long as you aren't trying to set type with a display font, or a novelty font, go with what looks good to you. Learn more about typesetting and body fonts. (Learn about spacing and lakes and rivers and small caps and headers and page numbering and leading. Especially learn about leading.) Upgrade when you know enough to see that your font choice doesn't do what you want it to.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JRHenderson said:


> But then I spot a random line of text which-_for no reason at all_-has a slightly bigger gap between itself and the line below. Which doesn't look good.


Hmmmmmm.

Usually you see that when there is a space or invisible character that is defined as another size or font. (This is really annoying, because very often it's an unselectable, "end of file" junk character which will not allow you to change it.)

I've never seen that caused by a font before. (though some fonts may make it more visible than others.)

Have you tried selecting all (or selecting a large block of text above and below it) and making sure the font, size and leading are all what they are supposed to be? (If all those are the same, and the gap remains, you then leave it selected and change the font. If that fixes it, then you may be right about the font causing it.)

Also, have you made sure that this gap isn't a display issue. I've (rarely) seen this crop up on screen, but it prints just fine. Again, annoying.

There are some things you can do to resolve the extraneous invisible character problem, but they depend on your existing work flow (i.e. what apps you're working in, and where the file came from and is going to, etc.).

Camille


----------



## SHARK BEACH (Jan 22, 2014)

I like to use Georgia 12 font size...Looks great in published books! Many people use it! 
This has been a RESPONSE from Shark Beach-Pamela Westwood


----------



## tknite (Feb 18, 2014)

Like several people here, I use Garamond size 11. I find 12 a bit too big. I checked out a bunch of different fonts before I published my first (and currently only) book, and out of all of them, I liked the way Garamond looked the best. Interestingly, I write drafts in Book Antiqua size 11, but I don't print the final book in it. There's just something I don't like about it in print. I can't really pinpoint what it is. Guess I'm just picky.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> Is Times Roman 12 still the standard for POD books?
> 
> Times Roman is so 90s. Can I use something else e.g. Minion Pro or Baskerville?
> 
> ...


There is no "set standard."

When I do print formatting for clients, however, I do have some favorite fonts.

They include:

Bookman Old Style
Adobe Garamond Pro
Adobe Caslon Pro
Gentium Book Basic

Those four do pretty well for serif fonts, in terms of providing some variety. If we're talking main body of the text.

Obviously, there are hundreds of great titling or header fonts, and some pretty interesting non-serif fonts, but most of those are not good for a main body-text font.

The reason? A lot of great fonts mess up their chances by not being "pro" fonts, meaning they have incomplete character sets. And that's essential to use a font in the body of a book.

I mean, a font can look super-sharp, but if it lacks an em-dash or quotation marks or sometimes even numbers, you simply can't use it as a body-text font for most books.

So I mostly stick to those four because I know they all contain all the necessary characters to comprise a good, trustworthy body-text font.

Unless a client requests large print, I usually format in 11 point using those fonts.

A small handful of clients have on occasion expressed preference for 11.5 or 12 point, but most are happy with 11 point.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

von19 said:


> If you like Times, use it. I am. And like someone said, it doesnt really matter because the reader can change the font and size to whatever they want. I just checked out the Garamond font and I dont like it very much. No offense everyone.


I used to like it until I needed reading glasses, and then it's a bit too light for my poor eyes.



WDR said:


> I really agree with you on that one. While I like the look of regular Garamond, I found the italics to be difficult and unpleasant to read. The plain italic in Apple's version of Garamond has a much narrower width of the regular face. Reading it is like hitting a speed bump. There is another italic face for Garamond called Kursiv, which is not so reduced and therefore more readable.


But Garamond Italics is the best part.  I do agree it's a bit narrow, but I like the style.



Lummox JR said:


> I don't think it ever was a standard, or if it was it shouldn't have been. TNR is not only an outdated font, it was never designed for print. It looks lame enough on a screen, where it was meant to be displayed. It shouldn't be in an e-book--or worse, on the cover.


Thank you. I need validation as to why I want to choose something else other than TNR. It's a bit dull, IMO. 



Christopher Gray said:


> Goudy old style is a nice, delicate font that I'd like to try one day... it would probably work well for Romance but for my hard-edged science-fiction novel I chose Minion Pro. Previously I had used Caslon Pro.


Minion Pro is very readable on my Scrivener.



SHARK BEACH said:


> I like to use Georgia 12 font size...Looks great in published books! Many people use it!


You know, many of the ebooks I've bought seemed to have defaulted to Georgia. I wasn't sure if 12 or not. But it's just as readable as Minion.



CraigInTwinCities said:


> I mean, a font can look super-sharp, but if it lacks an em-dash or quotation marks or sometimes even numbers, you simply can't use it as a body-text font for most books.


I hear you. Sometimes I change the font, start typing, and then the numbers are squashed, or em-dash has hooks on both ends and not a straight line, etc. And then I have go find a more conventional font.



CraigInTwinCities said:


> A small handful of clients have on occasion expressed preference for 11.5 or 12 point, but most are happy with 11 point.


I always thought that 11 is too small for me, but I hadn't thought of 11.5. I'll check it out. I printed my proof copy in point size 13, and it looked great, but I was thinking it'd cost me a fortune for POD.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Love Palatino Linotype.


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> Usually you see that when there is a space or invisible character that is defined as another size or font. (This is really annoying, because very often it's an unselectable, "end of file" junk character which will not allow you to change it.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for getting back to me Camille.

The paragraph's formatting was changed when I altered the fonts in the document's text styles. And the bigger-gap-between-lines problem only seems to affect the first line of some of the paragraphs-both on-screen and on my laser printouts. It's all a bit flakey and doesn't inspire confidence when you're creating a product that's going on sale.

It's late here now, but tomorrow I'll have another look at the fonts available on my computer and see if I can find something more reliable. Thanks again for your help!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I forgot Palatino Linotype; it is a great alternative pro-font.

Also, I recently had to redo my book, Most Likely. While producing the audio book with my narrator, I uncovered a half-dozen typos, so I updated the formatting as well.

I used Adobe Caslon Pro for the body text this time, but decided to use... Crimson Text for the drop-cap and chapter-header font.

Why?

Simple.

Most fonts have w's that look like mountain peaks and valleys.

However, the Crimson Text font has something I love: a gorgeous capital "W" that features the middle lines crossing. It looks like two overlapping "V"s.

Call me a font-nerd, but G-d, I love it so!

Like so:


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

I love Palatino for presentations, menus, and flyers, but I just can't warm to it for a body font. Yes, I know it's a standard body font, this is my particular burden.


----------



## chrisstevenson (Aug 10, 2012)

I just recently requested that my publisher use a larger (YA) font for the book to boost the page count a bit. And it turned out beautiful--easy to read--more relaxing.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

WDR said:


> If you are going to print or high-resolution eInk-type displays (or for high-resolution displays such as Apple's Retina Display):
> 
> 
> Always use a serif font. It looks nicer to the eyes and helps them flow over the words better.
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I forgot Palatino Linotype; it is a great alternative pro-font.
> 
> Also, I recently had to redo my book, Most Likely. While producing the audio book with my narrator, I uncovered a half-dozen typos, so I updated the formatting as well.
> 
> I used Adobe Caslon Pro for the body text this time, but decided to use... Crimson Text for the drop-cap and chapter-header font.


That W looks nice! Too bad I don't have Crimson.

After a few years staring at the screen in Palatino, I needed to take a break from it. So sometimes I use Cochin or Hoefler or some other serif fonts...


----------



## Catchy (Mar 3, 2012)

Now that I'm older and need reading glasses, I find I do enjoy a print book much more if it's a generously sized font, and nice deep leading (space between the lines). I really hate when lines run to the edge of the pages and you're either constantly moving your fingers to read the next line or straining your wrist trying to hold the book open to read in the curve.

For digital books, I have to be able to set my own type size and font. Light, position...everything seems to have an impact.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I truly LOVE font snobbery and discussions of font snobbery. I'm not even being sarcastic. Font talk is to me like cars are to people who gather on Saturday night and show off their hot rods at the local Dairy Queen... or like business cards were in _American Psycho_.


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

JanThompson said:


> That W looks nice! Too bad I don't have Crimson.


Here it is Jan: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/crimson



JanThompson said:


> After a few years staring at the screen in Palatino, I needed to take a break from it. So sometimes I use Cochin or Hoefler or some other serif fonts...


HOEFLER!!! How the Dickens did I forget Hoefler Thank you, Jan! You've reminded me that there's a lovely typeface right under my nose! *hugs*


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Slightly off topic, but how do you change the first line paragraph indent in Word so it changes the entire manuscript that has already been written?

When I did the print version I found the indent was too big, but trying to change it meant risking messing up the whole manuscript. Does anyone have a plain vanilla instruction for reducing the first line indent before I go into print with my next book?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Slightly off topic, but how do you change the first line paragraph indent in Word so it changes the entire manuscript that has already been written?
> 
> When I did the print version I found the indent was too big, but trying to change it meant risking messing up the whole manuscript. Does anyone have a plain vanilla instruction for reducing the first line indent before I go into print with my next book?


Select all and use the ruler?

Better yet would be to define a body text style so you can change the style and have everything change.


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> Better yet would be to define a body text style so you can change the style and have everything change.


^ THIS.

Jan, I've spent most of my life ignoring text styles _"because I'm a control freak and I want everything to be perfect"_...

*shakes head at own stubbornness*

Now that I've seen the light, I can change the formatting of an entire 23,500 word book in a matter of minutes.

This video sums it up nicely... (4 mins, 29 secs)


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Commandments of Word Processing:

Use styles.
Do not ever use a tab, use the ruler to create an indent or a table to create a table.
Do not every double space, add space before or after the line or paragraph in the style.


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> ...or a table to create a table.


Don't ever use a table to create a table? 

*looks apprehensively at current WP document*


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Use the table command to create a table. Don't use tabs. And FFS don't use spaces.


----------



## leep (Aug 25, 2011)

I think this thread makes it obvious there is no standard.

Personally, I went for 11pt Garamond (14.5pt line height) and it looks good to me.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

leep said:


> I think this thread makes it obvious there is no standard.
> 
> Personally, I went for 11pt Garamond (14.5pt line height) and it looks good to me.


Actually, based on studying this thread I have decided that the standard is 14 point Papyrus.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

JRHenderson said:


> ^ THIS.
> 
> Jan, I've spent most of my life ignoring text styles _"because I'm a control freak and I want everything to be perfect"_...
> 
> ...


Thanks so much. I'll have a go. It doesn't change things that you don't want changed, such as italics, does it?


----------



## JRHenderson (Dec 4, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> Use the table command to create a table. Don't use tabs. And FFS don't use spaces.


Okay, I'm with you now Katie. I misread your previous post as _"Don't ever (a) use tabs (b) use the ruler to... (c) use a table to..."_



Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks so much. I'll have a go. It doesn't change things that you don't want changed, such as italics, does it?


Altering the text style of a paragraph doesn't override any individual changes that I've manually applied (such as italicising a particular word)-but I'm using Apple Pages. So I can't say how MS Word will behave, but I imagine it'll be just the same.

In the past, the thing that put me off styles was my inability to set them up; I would always look for the 'window' or the 'form' where I could tell the program what I wanted a style to look like. But it turns out that you're supposed to just set the style by altering text on the page itself, and then tell the program "Here, take what I've done to this text, save it as a template for other paragraphs and call it 'Style X'".


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

VydorScope said:


> Actually, based on studying this thread I have decided that the standard is 14 point Papyrus.


Ironically, Papyrus is very readable as a body text font. As is Comic Sans. (Actually, when I have a migraine and can't see worth a darn, I find that Comic Sans is the _most_ legible of fonts.)

But generally, no, don't use cute fonts as body text. Unless you want to go all alternative, retro grunge, pink punk on people.

Camille


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)




----------

