Codex journal

Joshua Langman's picture

Just got my copy of John Boardley's Codex journal, issue 2. There is some wonderful stuff in there, though there's also a lot of very sloppy proofreading, including misspelling names of contributors, and other typos. There are also some small typographical quirks, like putting people's initials in small caps in running text and hyphenating ragged text, that look a bit strange to me. The book reviews are good, and I'm about to jump into the extensive Menhart section that comprises most of this issue.

Has anyone else taken a look at this?

5star's picture

Thanks for the review JL. I'm glad I didn't preorder a copy.

misspelling names of contributors

I'll order version 2 ...your copy will become a collectors item no doubt :)

n.

John Hudson's picture

...hyphenating ragged text, that look a bit strange to me.

That can be legitimate. It is what is known as a soft rag, as opposed to a hard rag, but it should be done judiciously, either manually or with careful setting of hyphenation options, and only to avoid extreme differences in line length resulting from hard rag.

Sorry to hear about the proofreading issues.

My copy has not arrived yet.

hrant's picture

Neil, based on how they handled the first issue it's unlikely they'll reprint it (with or without corrections). In fact it's pretty much guaranteed it'll sell out and you'll be stuck buying the PDF version.

Ergo: don't wait - it's worth it even with typos.

hhp

5star's picture

I'll meet you halfway, I'll snag a copy with the addendum.

n.

Arthus's picture

I liked it, but found the quality a bit lacking in repro. The Menhart bit has some very sloppy and unclear quoting which is confusing to read and makes weird design. In all I also found the design a bit dull with the beautiful content. I mean, quite often the tension between the images, text and elements (colored blocks etc) was just off.

Such as with the cover, I know the reason for it, but pick one, type or photograph, and work further from that. Codex doesn't need tabloid-shop covers to sell, so make the most of it, hardly any other magazine designer (unless you count special subscriber versions) has that freedom.

These are nitpicks though, so far I've enjoyed the content a lot and it has kept me reading (and looking!) for the last evenings.

Miss Tiffany's picture

I have yet to do a thorough look through and comparison – which I think I am going to do – but I will tell you that the first issue was edited and put together by John and Carolyn Wood with design by Working Format and editorial assistance by Allen Tan. This new issue was edited and put together by John and Paul Shaw with design by Linda Florio and Allen returning as editorial assistant.

eliason's picture

I haven't yet seen it. With Paul Shaw on the team (whose Blue Pencil blog entries are exhaustively critical of published errors), I'm surprised to hear of proofreading failures.

Rhythmus.be's picture

My copy arrived yesterday. Shabby carton box, no protective plastic foil wrapper; so beware if yours arrives when it rains.

I was in love with the first issue. It’s been a while…

Very nice magazine, probably one of the best typography periodicals. Like the academic–designer mix.

I find the coated stock a somewhat unhappy choice, though. Prepress on the images could have been better. Liked the overall design of the first issue better.

Anyway, hope to see a long and glorious future for Codex!

marcox's picture

Ordered my copy today.

dezcom's picture

Still waiting for mine to arrive.

Hyphenating ragged right text is pretty normal. Not hyphenating rag text is unusual.

sevag's picture

I received mine today! Compared to the first issue, this edition is much subtle. It is more pleasant to read the text — you might get distracted by colorful illustrations or large alphabets, though. I like the way it smells, but the paper is too light for my taste. Overall, it's something lovely to have, but I don't have the same festive feelings which I had for the first issue. It doesn't have the academic peculiarity which I'd prefer; less images and more text.

Syndicate content Syndicate content