|
On the whole, too much of the wrong stuff.
The additions strike me as original content. It could be an organic "mash-up" -- sort of Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Dancing Men and Zombies, as it were. That might be lovely. But it's not Arthur Conan Doyle, and it shouldn't be advertised as such.
Having stated that, I think a case could be made for annotation. I was very fond of my thoroughly-annotated Oxford Shakespeare, when I was at University. Brevity was the beauty of those footnotes. They told me what I needed to know to understand the play, and nothing else. That's a specific function, and one not performed by a dictionary (which would tell me that a nunnery is where nuns live) or Wikipedia (which would open to me the vast richness of Elizabethan slang, not to mention brothels). Something between the two is useful (maybe even necessary).
|