Pity the digitization is from a facsimile, not an original print. But the justification doesn't convince me:
> Given how few copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer were originally produced, thirteen copies on vellum, and another 58 on pig’s skin, “any special collection’s library who are lucky enough to own an original copy are likely to be very reluctant to embark upon any form of digitization due to the significant risk of damage that the process could inflict upon the book.”
Huh? Damage from leafing through the book with gloves and snapping a photo of each page? For a book printed on animal hide (which can last millennia) in the late 19th century?
Meanwhile, papyrus scrolls, which are infamous for crumbling to dust from a sharp look, are routinely digitized around the world.
Wearing gloves to handle old books is no longer considered a best practice in most cases:
> Contrary to popular belief, gloves are generally not recommended as proper handling for rare books! The best way to prepare for handling rare materials is to simply wash and dry your hands thoroughly.
They don't provide the why, the most important part... If I were to guess it's because gloves make it harder to handle the books so you risk damaging them. Gloves (in the right material) that fit your hands perfectly are probably better than washing your hands, but those don't really exist!
It's all trade-offs, I'd argue. The nonsense with cotton gloves is clear rubbish*, but, there's no question that human skin is FULL of ... well, everything. Bacteria, "chemicals" (incl. oils), etc. And, skin varies dramatically between people along even "basic" axes like acidity**. Usually, when I work in a lab, I wear gloves not to protect myself, but to protect samples (more accurately, to minimize transfer from myself to said samples, and sometimes even potential transfer between samples etc.).
Even the concept of "clean dry skin" can vary markedly between people.
This isn't my field at all, so, I'm absolutely not disputing this guidance. I'd follow their recommendations were it relevant. Rather, just raising some points that perhaps others might even correct my thinking on ... I may take a look in the literature at some point to see if there is specific empirical research providing some real strength to this conclusion / guidance.
(I see that the NY Times article touches on extraction of DNA, for example, from past handlers / owners / etc. Is this "yet another attempt to _catalog us??_ ... In Soviet Russia, book catalogs you!)
* Though, easy to imagine the case for using such gloves - barring experience and better understanding / dissemination of relevant science
** Ugh - "punintended" ... seriously, only caught as I was typing
I'm guessing that it's much more reasonable for him to do high res scans of the version he has on hand than to go through the process of getting access via a library and proving archivist bona fides. Certainly not impossible, but I'm grateful for seeing this incredible work in any form.
Do you have any evidence or expertise to support this take? I've heard many times of other texts not digitized for the same reasons; I trust the experts have a reason.
Also, as the author doesn't have access to an original copy, what should they do?
If you're ever in NYC I'd recommend visiting a museum called The Cloisters. It's way up at the tippity top of Manhattan, but it's worth the visit. They have a lot of old religious artifacts, which includes the most beautiful book I've ever seen in person. It's called the Belles Heures of Jean de France. Here's a photo I took of it:
Edit: I cannot find the article I was thinking of, nor online implementations:
does anyone remember studies which spawned from the 2017 "Neural Style Transfer" cone, but were based on giving a limited set of source images to the engine to study the source style thoroughly?
To me it looks like one of those adult coloring books.
edit: actually read words of the article, which says "But thanks to Goodman, younger readers — even much younger readers — can enjoy it in coloring-book form."
Yeah, I thought the same thing. edit: of course the coloring book is a $40 CAD hardback. I mean $40 isn't a lot of money but I have a hard time justifying that for a disposable gift for my tweener kid.
There is a wonderful animated film called The Secret of Kells inspired by this book. It has the most beautiful animation style of any movie I have ever seen, I think. Highly recommended it just for the artwork.
Am I crazy or is this book not remarkably beautiful? I mean, the illustrations are nicely clean and consistent for a woodcut but I've seen books that took my breath away and this ain't one of 'em.
It's in this extremely busy style that used to be popular, it's not exactly the same thing but it reminds me of Gothic cathedrals where every square inch of the building has to be covered by some sort of carving or design. I find it distracting and hard to look at.
(It also reminds me of that quote from Rick McCallum, producer of the Star Wars prequels, who praised the prequels by saying "it's so dense, every single image has so many things going on.")
But I do enjoy the book's physical size. I have a thing for giant books.
You’re not crazy - particularly given that there were other pre-Raphaelite artists producing other stunning volumes around the time, like Dulac with the Arabian Nights and Millais and company with the Moxon Tennyson.
I do feel the need to comment on one particular line of hyperbole though:
> the likes of which we seldom, if ever, see in the printed books of our own, infinitely higher-tech century.
Advances in technology have generally been used to increase the availability of books and lower their cost.
Yesterday I purchased "The Hogwarts Library" for I think $40 and it included 3 large books full of hundreds of pages of full color images. That type of quality, especially at that price, would be unheard of in the 1800s.
And if you want books with similar features (and more!) to those this article describes you can get them:
(Also Arion Press, Centipede Press, Curious King, Subterranean Press, and St. James Park Press)
Books with those features are far more common today than they were when the Chaucer book was published.
And if you ever want to get into collecting rare, limited edition, and antique books come join us! We're a fun community (though like all things collectable bank accounts will suffer the consequences).
> And if you ever want to get into collecting rare, limited edition, and antique books come join us! We're a fun community (though like all things collectable bank accounts will suffer the consequences).
Oh, god. Some of those links and names are new to me. I'm not sure whether to thank you or curse you. I've bought Easton Press and Folio Society books for years, and that was bad enough.
Still...there's nothing quite like sitting down and reading a really well-made book. It's a totally different experience.
> That type of quality, especially at that price, would be unheard of in the 1800s.
Just compare role playing rule books from 30-40 years ago with those today. Back then they were mostly text with the occasional b/w line art and 10-ish full color pages on the middle.
Today every single page is full color and most of them feature some sort of art piece.
How do book rights work? I'm working on a novel and it's my dream to have a beautifully illustrated hardcopy, but I thought that publishers had the exclusive rights to make copies
These prestige book makers will negotiate with the publishers for the rights to do a printing. Almost always this is done for a set fee to publish x number of books within a set period of time (limited edition runs) or with a set fee per book printed (I believe this is the arrangement Folio has for the A Song of Ice and Fire books).
This is the main reason that these shops will always have 'the classics' in rotation but their printings of more recent books are typically one and done.
This is not my area of expertise but my understanding is that publishers are generally happy to have these collectors editions of books made, the limitation is typically with the prestige makers themselves needing to sell 800 to 1,000 copies to make their economics work. Keep in mind they typically commission illustrators to make art for the books in addition to acquiring the rights and the actual production costs.
One thing I will say is that if what you're after is a single personal copy then there is an entire community of amateur bookbinders, similar to woodworkers, some of whom make truly beautiful works of art. If you're willing to pay an illustrator, a designer, and commission one of these bookbinders you can get yourself a bespoke copy that's exceptional.
Thanks for the information. I want many copies as personal gifts to friends and family, but not on the order of 800. So if my book is commercially successful and my publisher is supportive enough it could happen. Thanks again
> Given how few copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer were originally produced, thirteen copies on vellum, and another 58 on pig’s skin, “any special collection’s library who are lucky enough to own an original copy are likely to be very reluctant to embark upon any form of digitization due to the significant risk of damage that the process could inflict upon the book.”
Huh? Damage from leafing through the book with gloves and snapping a photo of each page? For a book printed on animal hide (which can last millennia) in the late 19th century?
Meanwhile, papyrus scrolls, which are infamous for crumbling to dust from a sharp look, are routinely digitized around the world.
That makes no sense at all.