Indeed, to me that’s the real greatness of this typeface: it doesn’t draw attention to itself, it lets the content and the words speak. Does the review really achieve that? Or even reflect that?

Consider: This …
“… just retro enough, that speaks secret rumors (with a spicy soupçon of snark) in its italics and sober (even if it’s just for a blogpost) truths in its romans.”

or …

“… just retro enough in its italics and sober in its romans.”

Which works better? Orwell got it right, decades ago, when he advised, among other things, to keep cutting till there’s nothing left to cut.

Compare the nonsensical first paragraph, which tells us almost nothing we need to know, with the relatively greater control of the second. Of course, there is mandatory silly parenthetical remark (what incontinence is this?), and sentences that are, quite simply, thoughtless:

“The moderate pace of its transitions from thick to thin are ably controlled to avoid the sparkliness we associate with moderns with the fast and abrupt transitions of, say, Bodoni”

Okay, so maybe it’s just me, but what does the phrase “with the fast and abrupt transitions of, say, Bodoni” have to do with avoiding sparkliness? Upto “moderns” it’s at least comprehensible. Does the latter phrase go with avoid, control, pace, transitions, or something else altogether?

We’re all entitled to our delusions, most of all about ourselves. There’s no reason Munch should be any different.

Meanwhile, Luxuryluke has it right. In vino veritas. Point us to this two-olive bar, someone.

You need a strong stomach to digest the bilge “that speaks secret rumors (with a spicy soupçon of snark) in its italics and sober (even if it’s just for a blogpost) truths in its romans”. Check intelligibility at the gate, please.

Supercilious, self-important, arrogant writing like this has no place on your pages. For a typeface that is truly smart, intelligent and thoughtful, this review is a massive disservice.