|
20 Jun 06 - 09:30 PM (#1765165) Subject: BS: Much Ado About ... From: JohnInKansas This seems to be new. Apologies if you've already heard about it. From Jim Louderback: "Google … now it plans on offering up the collected works of the Bard, searchable by anyone. The literary community is going bonkers. Is this a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? Or the beginning of a holy crusade?" Google Shakespeare? (Ref: Shakespeare, Copyrights, Online Books) John |
|
20 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM (#1765181) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: Rapparee The Oxford Shakespeare is already online and searchable at Bartleby.com, among other places. So what's so special about what Google is doing? |
|
20 Jun 06 - 10:58 PM (#1765206) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: GUEST,Desdemona Is the searchable Oxford free? If a comprehensive source of the plays and sonnets is available free of charge, I'd say it's an excellent resource, IF they're good, annotated editions. On the other hand, since there was no notion of "definitive" versions of these texts in the 16th/17th centuries (see the "good" and "bad" Quartos, the Folio editions, etc., and the fact that it was only much later that they were even divided into scenes, acts, etc.), it's arguable that there is no "real" version of Shakespeare. In any case, my feeling is that anything that makes the material readily available has to be a good thing. ~D |
|
20 Jun 06 - 11:15 PM (#1765212) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: JohnInKansas The link posted above is to a brief eWeek comment, at their "Google Watch" site. That page does have a link to the Google Shakespeare pages, where you can evaluate whether what they've done is worth anything. A likely reason for the notice popping up at the watch site is the disclaimer, separately linked, to the blog site where a Google executive(?) indicates that they were unable to post "a few" (published versions of) Shakespeare works because of copyright questions. Google has claimed the intent to post "everything there is about everything" in some of their announcements; but many people have predicted copyright/license problems for them with respect to those ambitions. They have, apparently, met a lot of resistance from some libraries who seem to not want their collections freely available. This is just one-more-episode in the saga: of interest perhaps to some, and of no interest at all to many. The Shakespeare site does have a couple of less-known (at least less quoted) works; but I haven't looked at versions. It's implied that each "work" is a single web page, which does permit easy text search within each play - (which is another thing I haven't verified as yet). John |
|
20 Jun 06 - 11:38 PM (#1765228) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: Rapparee Some libraries, yes. But even more resistance from copyright holders, who feel that their intellectual property is being ripped off. I have seen estimates that Google's work at the New York Public Library alone will take in excess of 300 years, and that's allowing for foreseeable advances in technology. Yes, the searchable version of the Oxford Shakeseare is free. So are the searchable versions of the other books there. Go to www.bartleby.com and check it out for yourself. It's a great reference site. |
|
21 Jun 06 - 12:46 AM (#1765266) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: JohnInKansas Rapaire - The copyright thing seems to be only part of the big puzzle. Google expected, one presumes, complaints from copyright holders, and some early reports promised strict observance. There was some uncertainty about what they meant by "strict observance" since they mumbled things about wanting to archive everything - open source or copyrighted; but they promised to withhold distribution for anything where restrictions were appropriate. Part of the originally announced plan was that they'd give an archive its own copy of anything they digitized, and the libraries/archives could decide how to use it for their own purposes. Some reports since the first anouncements say that the biggest roadblock they've hit is unrelated to copyright but is instead just with libraries/archives themselves not wanting to share - or just not agreeing with how the "sharing" will be done. There probably is a valid rationale, but it is a bit puzzling, and seems to vary from library to library. Of course they're not really telling the whole world what kinds of negotiations they're into; so also of course everybody's making wild guesses. The few seemingly authentic "explanations" from Google seem to be all of the kind where "the lips move but but we can't tell what you're saying." 'Makes one think they're running for office. John |
|
21 Jun 06 - 01:04 AM (#1765272) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: mrdux I've been using the free searchable online complete Shakespeare at the University of Sydney IT School website. http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/test.html And many thanks to them. michael |
|
21 Jun 06 - 02:04 AM (#1765286) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: JohnInKansas A quick look at the Oxford Shakespeare and the U Sydney indicates that each has one publication, albeit containing all or nearly all the principal Shakespeare works. A difference at the Google site is that you can click on "all versions" and have a choice of many different publications of a given work. As an example, clicking to "Merry Wives of Windsor" returns three pages of "choices" with 8 different editions (along with a couple of commentaries) on the first page. Whether that's significant to a particular user is impossible for someone else to say. It has been my experience that a different "edition" can make quite a lot of difference in "readability," especially for some of the less quoted ones that may be a little less "standardized" by usage. The copy of "Timon of Athens" that I found when I was about 9 y.o. after someone had tossed it under a neighbor's garage (© 1897) was pleasurable reading, but the "Bantam Books" version I had assigned as a college sophomore (©not quite that old) was brutal punishment. Of course maybe it was just the typography... Others' experience may vary. John |
|
21 Jun 06 - 09:06 AM (#1765463) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: Rapparee I don't think that most readers care what edition is used as long as it's not Bowdlerized or otherwise badly edited. Unless you're a scholar or otherwise deeply involved in textual studies, of course. I would never read Lamb's version, but whether my text is taken directly from the first folio or from some other source is of little consequence to me, the general reader. |
|
21 Jun 06 - 09:13 AM (#1765468) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: freda underhill I've been using this site The Complete Works of William Shakespeare which has been up & running since the early 90s. freda |
|
21 Jun 06 - 11:03 AM (#1765555) Subject: RE: BS: Much Ado About ... From: Bunnahabhain This will be a gift to the the thread name game..... |