Book People Archive

Re: Google Books

Well, I'm actually incredulous at David Starner's comment.  Now the artist 
is blamed for not taking into account techonlogy 100 years later, not to 
mention the fact that the original writer/artist has a _purpose_ in the 
physical layout of the book/poem, etc... that we are losing in some sense 
if we don't digitize with an eye to original intent:

David Starner wrote:

> 
> Tristam Shandy was designed in such a way that it would get mangled.
> That's poor design on the author and original publisher's part, and
> makes it a poor choice for any study of the quality of any system.
> 

What next? Blame da Vinci for not realising  the Mona Lisa wasn't properly 
  designed to be reproduced full-size on 8 1/2 by 11 paper?  This is quite 
the specious argument. Let's stop blaming the original artists/writers for 
designing for their own print medium because we have a problem re-designing 
them for the new digital media.  The fault, dear David, "lies not in our 
stars, but in ourselves...." .....Pardon me, Will. I couldn't resist.

BTW, I thought the Tristam Shandy article was spot on.  If Google only 
produces dreck, and it's the only game in town, we'll only be reading 
digital dreck.  That's why what we do here is important in the long run.

Thanks!
Jeff Kelley
www.kellscraft.com