Speedball is collaborating with calligrapher and educator Filip Ciślak on Troubleshooting Italic, an ongoing content series that helps artists identify and correct common issues in Italic calligraphy. Through clear visuals and expert guidance, Filip shares tips to improve rhythm, spacing, and stylistic consistency—making the series a valuable resource for calligraphers at all levels.

This project showcases Filip’s unique teaching approach and highlights Speedball’s commitment to supporting skill-building and artistic growth within the calligraphy community. Read the full blog post here:

 

Troubleshooting Italic – Part 1

Let’s start with a useful perspective: A mistake is only a mistake within a certain context. In Western calligraphy, the most frequent design-level mistakes relate to the three core issues:

A mismatch between letterform and literary theme
Typographers understand this well: a style is only as appropriate as it fits the text it represents. Just as Comic Sans doesn’t belong on a gravestone, a historic Gothic Textura with all its anachronisms may feel out of place in a futuristic context (unless adapted). Dissonance can be a valid artistic choice, but it should be intentional, not accidental.

Inconsistency within the visual theme
Formal calligraphy demands legibility and structural harmony. Informal scripts offer more expressive freedom. Beyond that, each style carries its particular requirements. Italic, for example, has specific historical models and visual logic that guide its construction. Letters must feel like they belong to the same visual system.

Misalignment within the compositional context
A letterform might be beautifully executed in isolation, yet feel out of place in a word, line, or layout. Type designers solve this with alternates and ligatures. As calligraphers, we have the advantage of flexibility and real-time adjustment. That’s what keeps calligraphy dynamic: it’s a constant balance of adaptation and invention.

We’ll primarily focus on the second and third categories – mistakes rooted in visual inconsistency and compositional imbalance. These are often subtler than technical issues like ink flow or paper quality, but they’re just as critical for your work.

That said, from time to time, I’ll introduce some issues related to technique and materials as well, but it won’t be my main focus.

This first installment examines the most basic letters: i, n, m, l, j, h, u. They are grouped by structural similarity. We’ll look closely at common problems in their construction and explore practical ways to correct them.

Case 1 – uneven spacing

This is a big one – not just for this specific group of letters, but for all of calligraphy. You’ve probably heard that the spacing should be consistent. But what does that mean?

First, it’s important to understand that spacing can’t be measured by the physical distance between letters. Instead, think of it as creating an even distribution of negative space – the space between and around the strokes.

Achieving that consistent rhythm requires a balance between the counterspaces within the letters and the spaces between them. Every detail plays a role: the length of a serif, the taper of a stroke, even the texture and density of the ink. All of these can subtly shift how the spaces feel on the page.

That’s why spacing can’t be reduced to a formula. It’s not mechanical – it’s visual. It’s a skill built through observation, sensitivity, and ongoing practice.

Notice how the inconsistent shapes and sizes of negative spaces lead to a disrupted visual rhythm in this example.
The shapes and areas of the negative spaces are similar in this example, leading to a consistent visual rhythm.

Case 2 – branching consistency

 

Many Italic letters include branching strokes, like the exit stroke on n. One of the most common problems here is inconsistency. Varying shapes or angles break the rhythm and disrupt the script’s internal logic.

Subtle variation can add liveliness, but the branches still need to feel like part of the same system. Look closely at the negative spaces they create, and aim for consistency in both shape and size to maintain an even visual rhythm.

Case 3 – The tittle

The tittle, which is a fancy typographic term for the dot above letters like i and j, should complement the letter, not overpower it. At the same time, it needs to be visible, so it shouldn’t be too light or faint either.

The same principle applies to accents and other diacritical marks: they shouldn’t feel like separate additions. It’s not just about matching weight, they should be made of the same visual components as the letters themselves. Shapes, line quality, contrast, and weight all matter.

 

Case 4 – clumsy swashes

When writing Italic with a 45-degree pen angle (a common recommendation), the top swashes can easily become too heavy. Watch their visual weight, and consider lightening them to keep the overall form balanced and refined. A lighter touch or a slight adjustment to the pen angle can help you soften the stroke without losing character.

Case 5 – Inconsistent turning points

The transition from a hairline into a vertical stem, or from the stem into a hairline, can vary in both shape and weight. It can be gradual, angular, pronounced, or subdued. These turning points play a significant role in shaping the overall tone of a letter. You can observe them in entry strokes, exit strokes, and in the shoulders of the letters (like in the n-arch).

The potential mistake arises from not paying attention to these shapes, which can lead to weak forms or inconsistency. Think of it as the way the curve carries weight into or out of the letterform. Pay attention to how the stroke flows, how the weight shifts, and how the transition is shaped. You might want to emphasize these parts of the letter or keep them more subdued. Either way, the key is consistency.

Troubleshooting Italic – Part 2

In the previous post of the series – Troubleshooting Italic Part 1, we focused on structurally simple Italic letters like i, n, and u. By taking a look at the most common problems, we laid the groundwork for understanding the most important visual ideas of this style.

In this post, we’ll turn our attention to a different group – letters with bowls and enclosed counters: a, d, g, q, b, and p. Some of the problems from the previous post will be back, and some will be specific to this set of letters.

Before we jump in, a quick aside: the problems I discuss are just that – problems, not laws. There are no rules you need to follow if you don’t want to. There’s no calligraphic police that will come for you if you generously space Gothic (please, don’t do this). That said, every design decision has consequences, and being aware of them is just as important as technical skill. Just because crossing two thick strokes adds weight and disrupts the flow doesn’t mean you can never do it. It just means you need to be especially careful when making that kind of decision, because it will lead to a specific outcome.

Case 1 – spacing (again)

We kicked off the previous post with the problem of spacing, and I stressed its importance. I’d even go as far as to say that if you’re able to evenly space your letters, you’re already ahead of most calligraphers.

In principle, it’s simple: it’s all about creating an even distribution of negative space—the space between and around the strokes. This requires a balance between the counters within the letters and the spaces between them. In practice, it’s one of the most difficult aspects of calligraphy.

Today, we’ll look at a more nuanced example than in Part 1. This time, we’re working with a word that includes the new letterforms with bowls and enclosed counters.

The distances between the letters are similar, but the areas of negative space between them vary a lot.
Notice how the new letters introduce extra white space above and below the bowls. We need to compensate for this by moving them slightly closer together.
After this small adjustment, the spacing becomes more rhythmical and no longer disrupts the flow of writing.

Case 2 – heavyweight intersections

The fix for this one can be tricky. It requires a lot of control: pen angle, pressure, and sometimes even a bit of subtle rotation mid-stroke. So what exactly is the issue, and why does it matter?

The short version: two thick strokes shouldn’t cross. When they do, they create a heavy, dark spot that pulls the eye and breaks the rhythm of the letter. You should be just as careful when the strokes only meet, like at the top of the a in the example.

This isn’t just a technical problem – it’s a visual one. Calligraphy, especially italic, depends on flow and contrast. Those dark spots throw things off. They make the letter feel clunky, even if everything else is working.

The fix? Pay close attention to how your strokes interact. A small change in angle or pressure can make all the difference.

Case 3 – The tail

Remember when we discussed the weight of swashes in Part 1? Here, I want to take a closer look at one of them: the tail of the g. Its weight should match the rest of the letter, not overpower it, and not appear too fragile. The latter usually happens when the stroke gets extremely thin, but in practice, it’s much easier to go too heavy than too light.

That doesn’t mean it’s binary. There’s a whole scale of subtle variations that can work. A good rule of thumb for most letters? Avoid the extremes, unless the composition calls for it.

 

Case 4 – branching weight

This one applies to all letters with branching strokes, including some we covered in the previous post. If you want your letters to feel elegant, avoid adding too much weight to the branching stroke, especially where it meets the main stroke. It’s a similar issue to the one we saw with heavy intersections. You want to steer clear of that dense blob that disrupts the flow.

At the same time, the branching stroke needs some solidity and definition, so I try to avoid the other extreme as well. That said, a light branching stroke usually does less damage than a heavy one. (That’s why I added a question mark to the illustration.)

 

Case 5 – heavyset bowls

This mistake often comes from a misunderstanding of the bowl shapes in letters like a, d, b, and q.

If we’re aiming for the slender, elegant feel of formal italic, every part of the letter needs to support that idea, including the bowls. Beginners often make them too round, which gives the letters a heavier, more plump appearance.

The upper example looks off. The bowl shapes don’t align with the overall slender and elegant style of the letterforms.
To fix the problem, look at how the bowl relates to letters like n or u. Does the main stroke have a similar quality? Do the directional turns feel consistent? In a well-built letter, the transitions from thick to thin follow the same logic across the form.

Case 6 – branching strokes

The branching strokes issue from the previous post also apply to the letters with bowls. After all, these strokes appear in most of the letters in our new group. Remember, we’re aiming for consistency of forms – or at least controlled inconsistency (but that’s a topic for another time).

All of the letters except s have branching strokes. In the upper example, they vary in depth, which breaks the flow. In the lower one, the forms relate to each other, and we keep the slender, dynamic look of our minuscules.
We fix this by evening out the branching. No need to be super-precise. Just aim for a level of consistency that holds the rhythm together.