Edward,
Agreed as to copyright, then -- yes very Mickey Mouse, that
extension, the Disney-fication of intellectual property, in fact
-- also as to conflating disembodied texts with physical objects,
although Pixar may be working on that as a project, now...
Correct about Mackenzie: "bibliographers should be concerned to
show that forms effect meaning" -- in the sense of "create" the
latter... Not create it entirely, though, I don't think he went
that far. Certainly "effect" is the stronger term. But even if he
used your word, don't you think he meant mine?
I wouldn't think he supposed form was entirely determinative of
function, in any extreme sense: that it affects it, in the case
of books, yes no doubt -- both true in fact and yes he meant that
-- but can't book texts have a function if separated from their
form? Form=function is for (some) architects only, I'd thought.
I've recently read "Livre," by Michel Melot, which credits some
of Mackenzie's thinking. In France the texte became entirely
separated from the chose, per Barthes and several others, and
Melot like many lovers of The Book believes that's a pity.
I do too. Also a loss and even incorrect... I believe we can do
both, and now are doing so better thanks to digitization.
"Meaning", though, is something more complex. I'd have thought
Mackenzie's argument -- it's been some time since I last read it
-- would have gone the more moderate route. Oral meanings among
the Maori took on different shapes once they became literary, as
I remember, but the full meaning was something more different
even than that: something personalized, contextual, often unique.
Jack
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Edward Levin wrote:
> Jack
>
> You'll get no argument from me on the subject of copyright; the
> most recent US copyright extension was a Mickey Mouse piece of
> legislation in more ways than one. I also have no complaints
> with digital publishing, as long as we don't conflate the
> disembodied text with its physical object.
>
> Edward Levin
>
> BTW, although forms do affect meanings, what Mackenzie wrote is
> "forms effect meanings," which is, to my mind, a stronger
> assertion.
>
>
> >Jack Kessler wrote:
> > What remains to be seen is how much real access mere students and
> > the general public will be accorded, though, to the rare and
> > ancient works. Hopefully one will not have to be a "scholar"
> > already, to handle the books and thus truly appreciate that
> > "forms affect meanings", or we will run out of scholars.
>
> > ps. Copyright as-currently-constituted, I hope you'll agree, is a
> > roadblock to this process: if Stephen Joyce, to use the example
> > cited originally in the thread, restricts digital publication of
> > the works he controls, he curbs not only their digital
> > publication but the preservation of their printed versions as
> > well. We need both: both better preservation, and better access.
>
>