tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post5268869398804768387..comments2024-03-28T05:13:13.921-04:00Comments on Books, Inq. — The Epilogue: Haven't we ...Frank Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-37314729583601196122008-09-30T22:44:00.000-04:002008-09-30T22:44:00.000-04:00Yes, yes, Nannette, BINGO, several many BINGO, a v...Yes, yes, Nannette, BINGO, several many BINGO, a veritable uniformed army of 'em, under the "eye" (since vision's always a problem when it comes to the new <I>versus</I> the tired-but-true blue).<BR/><BR/>You hit the nail on the overblown hammerin' yammerin' wail of a galehead currently picking up hot-air-forced steam while simultaneously causing peeps such as JW to get all hot-and-blathered for gawd know's what reason.<BR/><BR/>I sure as hello? don't get it, either. Think that explains Frank's bemusement bordering upon increduliciousness it continues to rear its uglies.<BR/><BR/>It most assuredly involves the medium and its message which, as you know, some Canadian prophet made a career (nay, a vocation) out of exposing :). It always surprises me when I read comments like JW's, for precisely the reason you give.<BR/><BR/>We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future. "March," indeedly; good soldiers all (whether we like it or not).<BR/><BR/>McLuhan said we only understand the virtues, values, and effects of an old medium once a new one replaces it. March? For him, then, yes; but, now? I'd say, more and more, stumblebumble blindly, backwards into the future, only seeing it, in his terms, in the rear-view mirror (with intransigence, ill-founded trepidation, and baseless fear).Judith Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15630731762216185341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-27850379130472498152008-09-26T20:32:00.000-04:002008-09-26T20:32:00.000-04:00I fail to see what all the fuss is about. There wa...I fail to see what all the fuss is about. There was a time when taking book in hand was a sensual experience––fine leather bindings, gorgeous illustrations. Most of what's printed today in book form is not meant to last, so why waste the trees? <BR/><BR/>I have not yet found a device that I am physically comfortable reading when reclining in bed or on my sofa, however I do now take my laptop down to breakfast having finally given up on the erratic schedule of my newspaper delivery person. I can envision a time when my library will be totally digital––like my music collection––no longer taking up so much space and easily packed up when I move from place to place.<BR/><BR/>It's the words, not the medium, that count after all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456734276020287727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-13675817029493989202008-09-25T16:22:00.000-04:002008-09-25T16:22:00.000-04:00You're right, Frank; however, Ms. W.'s obviously f...You're right, Frank; however, Ms. W.'s obviously fond of repetition, as the second 'graph of her screed demonstrates:<BR/><BR/><I>Am I just an old-fashioned book lover who can't understand that the e-book is progress, like the presses of Gutenberg and Caxton? Am I just an old-fashioned writer who can't understand that spelling and grammar are elitist and that a move towards phonetic variants and free-style spelling is democratic?</I><BR/><BR/>Yep, you am (or, not to put to fine a point on this from-the-tip lip-schtick, you am a genuine one-of-a-kind democrit). Ain't no two sways about it.Judith Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15630731762216185341noreply@blogger.com