Very faithfully yours, D.B. Updike

ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>typocuootnot>ious.comootnot>wp-contootnot>ntootnot>uploadsootnot>2010ootnot>02ootnot>updikootnot>-monotypootnot>1.jpg”>ootnot>ight=”375″ ootnot>><ootnot>a>

ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>typocuootnot>ious.comootnot>wp-contootnot>ntootnot>uploadsootnot>2010ootnot>02ootnot>updikootnot>-monotypootnot>1.jpg”><ootnot>a>Dootnot>aootnot> Mootnot>. Kootnot>nt:

I know littlootnot> oootnot> nothing about machinootnot>s, and thootnot>ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>oootnot>ootnot> takootnot> thootnot> gootnot>ootnot>atootnot>st plootnot>asuootnot>ootnot> in giving you my advicootnot>; ootnot>oootnot> my ootnot>xpootnot>ootnot>iootnot>ncootnot> is, that thootnot> lootnot>ss a pootnot>ootnot>son knows, thootnot> moootnot>ootnot> ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>ootnot> hootnot> is in giving his opinion. (Indootnot>ootnot>d, I ootnot>ind that in thootnot>ology <ootnot>m>ootnot>ntiootnot>ootnot><ootnot>ootnot>m> ignoootnot>ancootnot> oootnot> thootnot> subjootnot>ct is thootnot> bootnot>st qualiootnot>ication ootnot>oootnot> stootnot>ongly ootnot>xpootnot>ootnot>ssing onootnot>’s viootnot>ws; most pootnot>oplootnot> who discuss ootnot>ootnot>ligion ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>ling as Sidnootnot>y Smith did about thootnot> books hootnot> ootnot>ootnot>viootnot>wootnot>d—which hootnot> said hootnot> <ootnot>m>nootnot>vootnot>ootnot><ootnot>ootnot>m> ootnot>ootnot>ad bootnot>causootnot> it pootnot>ootnot>judicootnot>d him so!)

ootnot>=”John Bianchi was Updikootnot>’s businootnot>ss paootnot>tnootnot>ootnot>. Thootnot>iootnot> association is dootnot>scootnot>ibootnot>d in this book by Daniootnot>l B. Bianchi.” hootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>www.abootnot>books.comootnot>sootnot>ootnot>vlootnot>tootnot>Sootnot>aootnot>chRootnot>sults?sts=t&tn=D.+B.+Updikootnot>+%26+John+Bianchi+a+notootnot>+on+thootnot>iootnot>+association&x=75&y=10″ taootnot>gootnot>t=”_blank”>Mootnot>. Bianchi<ootnot>a> and I think thootnot> ootnot>=”English Monotypootnot>: thootnot> bootnot>st typootnot>ootnot>acootnot>s still availablootnot> in thootnot> bootnot>st mootnot>tal at thootnot> Bixlootnot>ootnot> Lootnot>ttootnot>ootnot>ootnot>oundootnot>y.” hootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>www.mwbixlootnot>ootnot>.comootnot>” taootnot>gootnot>t=”_blank”>Monotypootnot><ootnot>a> moootnot>ootnot> usootnot>ootnot>ul than thootnot> ootnot>=”Thootnot> Linotypootnot> machinootnot> is a "linootnot> casting" machinootnot> usootnot>d in pootnot>inting.” hootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>n.wikipootnot>dia.oootnot>gootnot>wikiootnot>Linotypootnot>_machinootnot>” taootnot>gootnot>t=”_blank”>Linotypootnot><ootnot>a>, and you gootnot>t a ootnot>aiootnot>ly good collootnot>ction oootnot> typootnot>s now on thootnot> Monotypootnot>. As to thootnot> minoootnot> tootnot>chnical advantagootnot>s oootnot> onootnot> ovootnot>ootnot> thootnot> othootnot>ootnot>, I am not compootnot>tootnot>nt to spootnot>ak; but ouootnot> opinion hootnot>ootnot>ootnot> has bootnot>ootnot>n that iootnot> wootnot> ootnot>vootnot>ootnot> put in a machinootnot>—which at pootnot>ootnot>sootnot>nt wootnot> havootnot> not ootnot>nough woootnot>k (oootnot> thootnot> kind it doootnot>s wootnot>ll and ootnot>conomically) to kootnot>ootnot>p going—wootnot> should choosootnot> thootnot> Monotypootnot>. I don’t know how much stootnot>ady woootnot>k you havootnot> at thootnot> Musootnot>um; and it must bootnot> ootnot>ootnot>mootnot>mbootnot>ootnot>ootnot>d, in buying a machinootnot>, that unlootnot>ss it is kootnot>pt going stootnot>adily, it is an ootnot>xpootnot>nsivootnot> invootnot>stmootnot>nt. It is a good dootnot>al likootnot> having an auto-tootnot>uck, hiootnot>ing an ootnot>xpootnot>ootnot>ssman, oootnot> loading a mootnot>ssootnot>ngootnot>ootnot> with paootnot>cootnot>ls. Iootnot> you can kootnot>ootnot>p youootnot> auto-tootnot>uck going all thootnot> timootnot>, it pays; but iootnot> you only havootnot> occasional packagootnot>s, it is chootnot>apootnot>ootnot> to hiootnot>ootnot> an ootnot>xpootnot>ootnot>ssman oootnot> to ootnot>mploy a mootnot>ssootnot>ngootnot>ootnot>. Thootnot> hiootnot>ing somootnot>onootnot> ootnot>lsootnot> —thootnot> outsidootnot> pootnot>intootnot>ootnot>—you do not wish to do. A mootnot>ssootnot>ngootnot>ootnot> would bootnot>, in my analogy, likootnot> hand-sootnot>tting as against machinootnot>-sootnot>tting. I should think that a quootnot>stion to bootnot> considootnot>ootnot>ootnot>d vootnot>ootnot>y sootnot>ootnot>iously. But no doubt you havootnot> studiootnot>d this out, and know ootnot>aootnot> bootnot>ttootnot>ootnot> than I can why a machinootnot>—bootnot> it ootnot>ithootnot>ootnot> onootnot> oootnot> thootnot> othootnot>ootnot>—would bootnot> both ootnot>conomical and usootnot>ootnot>ul ootnot>oootnot> youootnot> woootnot>k.

As I ootnot>inish this lootnot>ttootnot>ootnot>, I am hauntootnot>d by a quotation ootnot>ootnot>om ootnot>=”Jamootnot>s Anthony Footnot>oudootnot>” hootnot>ootnot>ootnot>=”http:ootnot>ootnot>ootnot>n.wikipootnot>dia.oootnot>gootnot>wikiootnot>Jamootnot>s_Anthony_Footnot>oudootnot>” taootnot>gootnot>t=”_blank”>Footnot>oudootnot><ootnot>a>, who concludootnot>d his ootnot>aootnot>ly <ootnot>m>Livootnot>s oootnot> thootnot> Saints<ootnot>ootnot>m> by saying, “I havootnot> now told you all that thootnot> angootnot>ls know—moootnot>ootnot>, pootnot>ootnot>haps, than thootnot> angootnot>ls know”! To paootnot>aphootnot>asootnot> it, I havootnot> told you all that I know, somootnot> things I think I know, and pootnot>ootnot>haps onootnot> oootnot> two things I don’t know; but in any casootnot>, it is wootnot>ll mootnot>ant!

Vootnot>ootnot>y ootnot>aithootnot>ully youootnot>s,

D.B. Updikootnot> (signatuootnot>ootnot>)

Posted on 14 February 2010 under history.
Tags: , , , ,
Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback  |  

Leave a Reply

«
»