You may see some inconsistency in my approach to the labelling of the 20th century's second major conflagration. Generally the US calls it 'World War Two' and the UK calls it 'The Second World War'.
The magazine is called 'World War II'. I presume this use of numerals is a typographic convention alluding to history. The numerals 'II' seem a little grander than '2'.
That is the reason the working title for the book is World War '2' - it seems more accessible than 'II' or the UK version. It is my view that unless there are specific people you need to exclude, accessiblity is a good thing. Some may bring up the 'simplicity vs simplistic' point - 'why dumb down when you can raise standards?' but I believe the treatment of the subject matter is the serious matter, not the title.
Discussions about the visual articulation of information frequently drift to issues of treatment, detail and tone and we will discuss them elsewhere. My '2' can sit near their 'II' and somebody else's 'Second' - I am sure there is room for all.
Comments