Books and Other Fetish Objects

I agree with the ideas that Gleick states. In a world that seeks to allow open access to most information, it is a understandable notion that by uploading images of all, if not most, text onto the internet the information would be drastically more widely available, and the information would be preserved more efficiently. (Even the best kept books will crumble.)

That aside and even though Gleick did produce several positive examples, the article itself may be a little biased in that he only quotes one person. I am sure the availability of text on the internet is upsetting to others besides the one English writer. 

As we have read "The History of Reading" it is understandable that for thousands of years humans have built a type of kinship with the vellum, sheep skin, paper, or even cave walls that we have written on, but just as those people that came before us, the electronic uploading of those documents will just be another footnote in our history books. This is simply our renaissance of books. 

One of the biggest things to consider is who is going to foot the bill, and however does will have control of the information. Also, assumingly the information does become widely uploaded, who will monitor if the information is changed? 

I remember a long time ago that my Uncle said that he would never use an online bible. At the time I didn't understand, but as I grew up he meant because information controlled by someone else is always subjective to the controller, and I could see that becoming a possible problem in the future. But to refute advancement for the "grain of paper and the scent of glue," I don't agree.

Wikipedia: How far can it go?

I loved this article. For just about every project, historical or otherwise, I have somehow found my way to Wikipedia or at least to some offshoot of Wikipedia. At no point do I mean that I use all the information that I find, but I use Wikipedia to get a background and a starting off point of whatever theme I am talking about. I think one of the biggest problems, aside from the things that the article mentions, is that much of the cited works that are listed below each of the articles are not peer reviewed. I'm not saying that the information is invalid, but the information that someone decides is worthy enough to be placed on Wikipedia is often cited from Uncle Bob's Website, or any other website that has no merit in the first place. I'm not sure what Wikipedia could, or should do, to fix this.

The article states that one of its objectives is the allow everyone to jump rope, toss a ball, and race on the same playing field, but I do believe that a runner with a PHD should be in the same lane as a fifteen year old that just put down an eye opening book. Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge and the group editing and discussions should be available to everyone, but in a world that thrives on misinformation and mistrust, there needs to be a little bit more control. Knowledge in itself has built limitations, but the depiction of truth is based on the speaker and the way the information is presented.

Again, this is not to say that Wikipedia has flaws that are so bad that they will pull me away from my quick searches anytime soon. Probably, because of this article I am going to start fact checking some of the articles whose information I doubt myself, but the avenue of free editing and free information should not be abandoned because of a few car crashes and muggings.

Act 3 and 4; Including Gardner

I expected the play to turn out in an all around happy ending, I was happy to find that they play concluded much more realistically. In one terministic screen I could see Eliza trying to marry Higgins or Pickering,  but as an ode to woman's suffrage I am glad that she took the alternative route and at least tries to see to her own future. In these last two acts all the characters are made much more round, or set in their ways, but the most important aspect to me was the recognition of who Higgins actually was. In the last act Eliza and Higgins discovers that they are the same in one significant characteristic, their ignorance to change. In the beginning of the book Eliza did not see that her language was decadent and was ignorant of that fact, in the end Higgins was ignorant in his decadent language (although he spoke his curses much more pronounced.)

As for Gardner, I tried to imagine each scene in order to read this play already and at times I even acted out the voices in my head--of which I pulled out every stereotyped cultural voice I thought possible. I feel that, just like a novel, the beauty isn't in the words on the page, or even how their used, but the images that they give reference to in our minds. 

For example, the three feathered hat that Eliza shows up with and was stated to not be burnt, recalled to me the images of old women in the front pew of an old Southern Baptist Black church. All of Aristotle's elements are present, including his excluded setting, but our imagination brings it all together. When our imagination is not up to the task, or when the text does not give enough to structure our imagination of a particular object, that is when a text is considered boring, over the top, or just a waste of time.