Google Books or Great Books? Anthony Grafton reviewed by Peter Green – TLS

by

Google Books or Great Books? Anthony Grafton reviewed by Peter Green – TLS

Shared via AddThis

About these ads

4 Responses to “Google Books or Great Books? Anthony Grafton reviewed by Peter Green – TLS”

  1. Eleanor Shevlin Says:

    This review of Anthony Grafton’s Worlds Made by Words may seem a bit far afield, but paragraphs four through six seem relevant to our discussion. Paragraph five in particular addresses problems with scanning, cataloguing, and the like. As Grafto notes, these electronic tools reinforce the need to consult originals. Ditto– the “transfer of documentary archives is still in its infancy.”

    I especially liked Grafton’s example of the young scholar who used olfactory evidence found by consulting original documents to chart the history of cholera outbreaks.

  2. Stephen Karian Says:

    Thanks, Eleanor, for posting this. Grafton’s New Yorker essay (cited in the review) is here:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_grafton?currentPage=all

  3. Eleanor Shevlin Says:

    Thanks, Steve, for posting the New Yorker piece. I appreciate that scholars such as Grafton, Bob Darnton, Leah Price and others are writing about these issues in publications that reach a broader audience than simply academic outlets. Such work helps demonstrate the relevancy of the humanities today.

  4. Anna Battigelli Says:

    I like the two opposing views of the new electronic library depicted in Anthony Grafton’s article. On the one hand, Kevin Kelly envisions the electronic library as a clear and accurate index to all that is printed–“a single liquid fabric of interconnected words and ideas.” On the other hand, Grafton sees a “patchwork of interfaces and databases,” at best a spotty index to the world of letters.

    It would be nice to believe the former view, but the latter assessment seems more accurate. Grafton’s article makes clear the need for stronger and more rigorous search mechanisms in text-bases such as EEBO and ECCO. Arriving at such rigor is made all the more difficult by the introduction of human error within the original text. How would an automated recognition technology know to read “qnalitas” for “qualitas”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: