I really don’t like these readings because I think they are quite dense and honestly a little contradictory. For instance, I thought the definition of “good text” that Small uses for this thesis to run contrary to my understanding of expressive text so far based on our readings on text/fonts and expressive and kinetic text. His definition, adapted from Jan Tschichold, only maintains that “good print” should be pleasing to the eye, and “should not attract particular attention” implying that if it does, then the print will “fight against the words it must convey.” However, based off of our other readings in this class thus far, the argument has been the opposite, in that fonts and kinetic text can aid the meaning of the content of the text - that the form of the print can be an additive to the meaning, rather than it being passive and deferential to the meaning.