Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripplinger
For myself I'd prefer reading the original published in 1870, but following the third edition when converting to ebook isn't wrong by any means.
The difference is authorized changes vs someone converting to ebook deciding to make changes.
|
This highlights an issue I have with this poll. There is a major distinction between typography and layout on the one hand and content (e.g. word usage, punctuation, ...) on the other.
I agree that content should not be changed. If there are multiple "original" versions all approved by the author then you can make a choice between them. The first edition is not always the best. Charles Darwin reworded his "Origin of the Species" several times in responce to numerous misreadings and misinterpretations making the 6th edition (the last he personally oversaw) likely the best.
Personally, I rather like some of the old-style typographic traditions though not the truly antique. At the same time, I abhor any typographic stylings that were done to adjust for the nature of a paper book that don't apply to digital readers. These include fonts for the body text, margins, and line spacing. These should be controlled by the reading software/device. The body of ereaders provide all the margin needed beyond a trivial space between text and bezel.
Also on the abhorrent list are stupid gimmicks like textured or faux-stained backgrounds. No book designer worth their salt in times past every designed a book to look like that. They designed for clean paper. That an old book now displays such attributes is merely a sign that it has been mistreated, something an ebook should never emulate.
That said, I do like the older art style ornaments often seen in older books. There can be worked into ebooks easily and, when done well, look good. An example would be this edition of
The Agony Column by Earl Derr Biggers.