--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Mark D. Nevins" <nevins_mark@...> wrote:
>
>
> This has been an interesting off-topic thread--as much for seeing people's reactions to the changes in book technology as anything else.
>
> But joke about medieval manuscripts all you want: they remain the single most effective means of preserving texts thus far created by hupemans, excepting perhaps stone engraving, which can be a bit harder to store/handle, and if kept outside--often their usual place--tend to wear out with rain.
>
Nobody jokes about them... the question of preservation is enough to give pause...
> While working on my doctoral dissertation I had occasion to handle 1000-year old manuscripts on vellum on many occasions, and they were always legible, a pleasure to read, and extremely durable. Ironically, when I go back to access chapters of my dissertation on my hard drive, saved 15 or so years ago in Microsoft Word, I am astonished to discover that my current version of Microsoft Word is unable to open them!
>
> Like others here, I enjoy the pleasures of the artifact (the book) as much as the pleasures of the text. I can see lots of arguments for the Kindle etc. in terms ease and portability, and I have even read some short stories (F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Gibson) on my iPhone--not something I feel I'd enjoy doing regularly, but a way to pass some time on the subway or in a waiting room when I've found myself with nothing else to read. But given that some music DVDs I bought 20 years ago are not playing well today, I'd be very concerned about trusting humanity's archives solely to digital media forms.
>
A huge problem when technologies that are complex replace much simpler ones. If a computer cannot read an old disk, there is very little a person can do. A printed text can be copied without any high-tech.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Nov 2009 EST