Archived under:

I’ve heard somewhere (and maybe it’s true) that back in the 19th century, when fountain pens were invented to replace dip pens, and as they slowly took over the market, there was a concern that this modern wonder would diminish the quality of writing. The thinking was that a writer who uses a dip pen will have to pause the writing every minute or so to dip the pen in the ink well, so as to re-apply ink to the nib, and thus writing with a dip pen forces a systematically interjected moment for reflection. But now, with the fountain pen, there was no need to dip, no need to stop — just keep on writing, and keep writing, and keep on, like a house afire, like a bat out of hell, manic, hysterical … The forced pause was gone, and with it disappeared the natural room to reflect, to think.

Surely (so went the apprehension) this would lead to a more superficial literature.

I find this to be an interesting proposition, but I haven’t quite made up my mind on were I stand: I suppose I’ll have to write some novels with a dip pen, then several with a fountain pen, and then, only then, we’ll have material to compare and make a fair judgment. As we all can surely agree, it would be ill advised rushing to conclusions.

1x
Esterbrook nib no. 314: “Relief.” The 1926 Esterbrook catalogue describes this nib as “an exceptionally fine correspondence pen. Much used by ladies.” Photo: Martin Høyem
1x
A lineup of different Esterbrook nibs. In center is no. 442, the “Jackson Stub.” Photo: Martin Høyem
1x
Pages 2-3 of Esterbrook’s 1941-42 catalogue. The 314 is described as a good pen for “social correspondence and manuscript writing,” while the Jackson stub is simply described as a “firm, medium stub” with a “Falcon shape.” Scan from Internet Archives

Bibliography