tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post7104232203767291692..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: The Burney Collection: But, But, But...Glyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-7135638528271201662009-01-15T17:25:00.000+00:002009-01-15T17:25:00.000+00:00Absolutely: not instead of, but as well as.Absolutely: not instead of, but as well as.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-4461744505946737702009-01-15T17:21:00.000+00:002009-01-15T17:21:00.000+00:00I'd really like some comfort that the originals ar...I'd really like some comfort that the originals are safe. I'm reading Nicholson Baker's "Double Fold" at the moment, which catalogues the systematic destruction of newspaper archives in the name of progress (but really in the name of space-saving) by committing them to microfilm, itself of dubious longevity. <BR/><BR/>The press release makes reference to the microfilm archives, but also talks about the fragility of the originals, so I'm hoping this means that the originals have not been destroyed in the original microfilm scanning process. I'd also be interested to know if the digital scans are of the originals, or of the microfilm.<BR/><BR/>As a bar student, I spent many a happy hour browsing the archives of the Gentleman's Quarterly in the Inner Temple Library, (they had a pretty much complete set from the 17th century onwards) instead of doing my set assignments, and I can concur with Baker that old documents are generally much less fragile than the scanning-fanatics would have you believe (even the 19th century ones made with wood-pulp paper which are aupposed to all have crumbled to dust by now).<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong: I'm 100% behind making this material accessible to as many people as possible, but only where it doesn't mean the original source material is destroyed in the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com