That said, you raise interesting questions (even if they have nothing to
do with what I wrote). Here are my reactions:
Tom Ditto wrote:
...
>
>There is the poetry of Shakespeare on the one hand and
>the image of an early edition of this poetry on the other.
--I follow you so far.
>The binary translation, say to ASCII, of Shakespeare's works
>amounts to the equivalent of its original incarnation,
--Now you lost me. How is the translation to ASCII in any way equivalent
to the "original "incarnation? And what do you consider to be the original
incarnation? The thought in the author's head? The first words when
spoken? The first words penned on paper? And if the latter, presumably there
were multiple drafts, and if so, then which draft? And who judges? The
author, or the audience?
And, for the sake of argument, how is a mere ascii representation any
more the "equivalent" of the original than is Octavo's high-fidelity
representation of a version of the work (the first edition) prepared closer to the
moment when the author created the "original", whatever it was? At
minimum, the layout, typeface, etc all convey important contextual information
from a time close to when the "original" (whaqtever it was) was created.
Implicit in your posting is the notion that the "original" has some
higher value than other iterations. I am equally interested in seeing a text in
all it's forms, so that I can see how it evolves, both in terms of
content drift, and audience reception. Then when I am fortunate enough to
actually see the "original," my appreciation is deepened by an understanding of
context and evolution.
>but the digital representation of the pages of the early edition
>do not amount to the same thing as the physical copy.
--Of course, but what is your point? Octavo's CD is interesting because
it is a new kind of simulacrum that conveys much more information about
one version of Shakespeare's poems than was available before. And the CD
is much cheaper than a paper facsimile of the same work. The CD is a
substitute for nothing, but rather a new form that allows the contents to be
provided to audiences who otherwise never have access to the original, or
even a good paper-based facsimile. BTW, I also suspect that scholars and
philologists will find the CD useful.
>How do we transmit Rodin's "Thinker"?
--Good question. It made me realize an assumption behind the Golden Canon
-- namely, that the canon is a collection of written works. We
gravitated to the media form that today's technology is most capable of storing.
We should consider for inclusion other media forms (graphic, audio, film,
sculpture) that should also be included. And where the technology isn't yet
up to the task, at least include pointers to the works that we would
include if the technology allowed.
-p
---------------------------
"I never think of the future, for it comes soon enough."
- A. Einstein
Paul Saffo
IFTF
2744 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025