Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa
It depends on the author. Most modern authors are typing their books on a computer so the reader is actually closer to their writing experience than the paper. Is a typeset paperback novel any closer to the quill pen of Jane Austen than the reader? They're both so far away that I don't see myself any closer to her either way.
|
Actually, I do believe it is closer, if they're using the old(er) plates. If it were a new typesetting, with new, clean plates, not as much.
And if you don't see yourself any closer using the reader, then the argument that the reader someone provides a "better" (purer?) form of the content is greatly reduced. You're now left with convenience and other factors on either side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa
It's going to be the words that draw me in. Her words in her original manuscript may feel more like the brushstrokes of the Van Gogh in person, but I'm not going to have that.
|
Her words, but whose story? Even the Van Gogh's story was interpreted by the curator via placement among other works, the lighting, the color of the wall, etc. Even the frame changes it.
Did I read a different "Dragonriders of Pern" on the reader than in either the single-volume or omnibus editions? Yes. It did read differently. I think the reader didn't tell it as well at all -- it just told it in such a way that my arm didn't fall off as quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa
I'm going to have pulp, cardboard and a regular font set down by a machine.
|
If the author is writing pulp, I'll agree that what you-the-reader get is pulp.
I don't read pulp. (Much, and "pulp" depends on the reader, anyway.)