Single Column Setting?

Posted by J. Mark Bertrand
on Tuesday, May 02, 2006
|
Permalink

 
My earlier post on the ESV Journaling Bible revived discussion about one of the biggest wishes on the Bible-nerd list: a single-column text setting. If I had a nickel for every e-mail I'd received asking whether Crossway is going to publish one, I'd be a rich man. (I'd have about four bucks, anyway.) So imagine my joy when correspondent Derek Butler forwarded me some exciting news: Crossway is apparently planning a single-column setting of the ESV text to debut in early 2007. Apart from the news itself, no details are available. As I learn more, I'll pass it along.

As you can imagine, I'm pretty thrilled about this information. If it pans out, then we should see the single-column setting trickle down in various formats the way the compact and thinline settings have over time. If the single-column setting also has references, then I predict the new edition will be the ultimate ESV on the market. Now if I could just find something to do between now and 2007 besides pacing the floor.

Update: The ESV blog has now confirmed the fact that a single column setting is on the way -- but in a rather odd fashion. The information comes at the tail end of a post titled "Why Most Bibles Have Two Columns," where we read: "...will there ever be a single-column edition of the ESV? Yes, there will definitely be one, and maybe sooner than you think. That's all we can say for now. We might have less vague news for you in six months or so."

Now, what about the rationale given for double column settings? It's a three-pronged argument. Considering the problem from an economic point of view, the ESV blog suggests that it's cheaper to stick with a double column setting because it allows more words to be packed onto a page. From the standpoint of readability, a rather confused argument is given: when tiny type is stretched too far across a page, it's harder to read. This is true, but it assumes that a single column setting would have the same page size as a double column one. Ideally, the single column text setting would be hand-sized, designed for reading -- not conceived as a reference work like the "textbooks and dictionaries" the ESV blog mentions. (Also, it would not be a pulpit Bible, so the scruple about how hard it is to read a single column setting aloud in public -- which will naturally come as a shock to any authors who've done readings -- is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, our church reformats the ESV text into a single column in the order of worship for public reading. Type size, not the number of columns, is the real issue here.) Finally, there is the historical argument for double column settings: that's the way it's always been done. That's what traditionalists expect.

To be honest, I think this is the real reason why most publishers stick with the antiquated, reference-book format. And it's why the ones willing to think outside the box, to treat the Bible not as a dictionary but as a book meant to be read, are seizing the attention of more and more of the people who don't remember the ol' KJV they grew up with -- i.e., the ones we all say we're trying to reach. I'm pleased that a single column ESV setting is in the pipeline, but I wish there was more passion for the setting and its advantages on display!