244 years they’ve been at this—and the next edition will be the last physical edition.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/technology/encyclopedia-britannica-books/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t3
Wiki, the internet and the need for constant updating have taken their toll.
@FSA Scot nomination. For those wishing to take up my offer …. CJ says to email her with “Please Forward TO Robert re FSAS nomination” as the subject/title and just put whatever they want in the body of the letter. This will keep your WWAS username anonymity …. if you could include your real name and email add’ then I’ll email you and we can take things from there.
Regret the passing of Encyclopaedia Britannica first published in Scotland in 1768. But printing a new edition every two years seems excessive in this digital age. At some stage the publisher might return to hard copy on a 10/20 year cycle that might have some utility for reference libraries.
I predict (at least among libraries) a last run of the grunion, getting the newest print edition of the EB before it disappears. OTOH, I’ve noticed that very few people any more start their research with a look at an encyclopedia; they either expect a book on the specific subject (su-u-u-u-re we’ve got a book in the public library system exclusively on an obscure local businessman) or proceed directly to Wikipedia. This correlates with an observed lack of ability to and interest in doing actual research. I can point you to books and articles on a broad array of subjects, but you will have to and should draw your own conclusions.
Here’s what The Encyclopedia had that Wiki lacks: serendipity. I would always get sidetracked by something I saw while I was looking up something else. Links aren’t quite the same.
Phil Brown
Oh. I agree! It got so I would only look things up “in extremis” because it took so long to find what I went there for!
Actually, from the article, “Britannica usually prints a new set of the tomes every two years, but 2010’s 32-volume set will be its last.” So, the end is here. But they will continue to update and publish, though I’ve found their e-prices very odd: “It’s unclear whether people will be willing to pay for a household subscription, which costs $70 per year, or an app version for $1.99 per month.” [ibid] So, how does under $24/year jump to $70? And then a physical DVD is $29.95, while Britannica Online is $69.95! [Prices from the Britannica.com store.]
Considering Britannica doesn’t update quickly enough to cover current events, why not get a DVD every few years? Their pricing should discourage instead of encourage that. Indeed, my e-Britannica is 2005. Their pricing should really favor sinking the hook in deep with a monthly subscription, as the app does. I’m below $5/year and falling.
However, I think the move is a positive one since Britannica will no longer need to worry about whether an article is too long to fit on the paper available for it. I imagine a lot of writers are breathing sighs of relief.
Oh no. I love my Britanicas! And whle I use Wiki on occasion, it lacks authority. Russ used to do some posts for them, but others would come in and change it it suit their particular poltical views. How can you trust that? He fought back and forth, citing all his material while others didn’t. He finally gave up.
We have at least 3 full sets from different ages, plus The Annals of America and two sets of the Great Books of the Western World — plus as many of the year books as we could get our hands on over the years.
Sure Wiki can be updated to the minute. So can CNN, but that doesn’t mean the info is always correct. Great for current events, but I prefer some facts to have a bit more authority behind them that I know I can trust.
You point out a very, very important point: there have to be some ‘fixed stars’ like Britannica that cannot be ‘user updated’, or informational integrity and accurate scholarship goes to hell. I’m relatively safe on the aspects of Wiki I use most, aka marine fish and dead people [my hobby and my ancestors]—but if you’re looking for, say, the economic impact of the treaty ending WWI on Germany, the career of Bin Laden, US marriage laws OR the history of Rome, these articles are apt to be an electronic battlefield.
So do you trace back to “Dangereuse de l’Isle Bouchard”? There are reasons a woman gets that sobriquet! They generally turn out bad. 😉 Her family story would do a Hollywood screenwriter proud!
I’m very torn on this. On one hand, it’s just a move to a new medium and eventually a new paradigm of what that medium can do: Apple’s interactive textbook rollout this year, for instance. On the other hand, it’s the loss of a printed and semi-permanent and relatively easy to access resource, and a tradition.
I like the idea of a CD / DVD delivery method, ebooks and web online.
I’m not so crazy about the pricing structure per year or per month for a subscription. The $2 per month is OK, considering the amount of new material and bulk of existing material. $70/yr. is, I suppose, also OK. It just seems like more, since others don’t tend to do that.
I refer to Wiki, but yes, you’ll often see “citation needed” or other notes, or things that are n’t quite as reliable, or occasional to frequent slants by the authors. Wiki needs to be checked before citing it for a report or essay.
Overall, I suppose it’s the change from print to ebooks and multimedia. It just seems like the passing of an era.
It does, however, beat several shelves of a further out of date reference, sometimes.
There was, with venerable and scholarly Oxford Books, a very interesting way of handling its less rapid sellers—
For example, when I gathered the funds to get White’s Latin Dictionary (a tome with more pages than Webster’s International) or the even rarer Greek-English Lexicon, written in bi-alphabetic type and giving the breakdown of Greek ‘cores’ [ie, psychopompos, or Soul-guide, are two: psych and pomp—Greek is a language hard to understand until you learn the cores and learn that, especially with the verbs, you can ‘construct’ them freehand out of such spare parts. EG, the Anabasis, or March of the 10,000, is, literally, ana [down] prefixing [bas] going. Another translation: The March to the Sea. Suffice it to say that little book is very important to a Greek scholar, in getting to know the Greek worldview/mental modus operandi—but is never going to be a NY Times Bestseller.
What did old Oxford do, to preserve the financial advantage of a large print run, yet make these special books continually available? They printed all the pages and stored them in airtight containers, and when they’d get a call for White’s, say, they’d collate this huge book, put the binding on it, and ship it to the customer.
Unfortunately our own IRS declared that any product sitting in warehouse has to be taxed annually, which made the US publishing industry unable to operate like that, do one large economical 50,000 book run, then siphon it off for 10 years, making money and keeping everybody happy. Oh, no. We now have to set up the presses for a run of, say, 1000 copies, sell those, then set up and do it again—which costs hugely—as, of course, does a tax applied 10 times (annually) to the same exact item. Our whole tax concept, combined with rising shipping costs, has combined to force the change to e-books. Thank our congress, among other forces, for declining to address that situation.
I had a lovely translation of the Anabasis years ago that I lost in a flood. I really need to replace it. And I’ll probably do it in ebook format.
On the other hand, I have started buying (used) copies of the Cambridge Ancient History set. The first volume belonged to a Nobel Prize winner with an unpleasant history (not the book’s fault!) and the second two volumes are from the estate of Chaim Potok. These books are expensive even in used copies, but I love them. I’ve read the first two, working on the third and own the fourth (which has no special history except Russ bought it for me for my birthday). My plan is to buy the next volume when I start the previous one so I don’t have to wait when I finish one.
I read many of these in the library years and years ago and wanted to own them from the start. So much fascinating information and plot bunny fodder. I love learning just for the sake of learning, though.
But we can read 11th Century manuscripts today. The Book of Kells. I’ve got some 8″ floppy disks with data on them from 1980. Who can read them now?
It’s not as if the Encyclopedia Britannica is going away. It’s just a change in the available formats. The only part of all this that I don’t like is Britannica’s pricing structure. I am completely over the paper fetish that so much of the world seems to have. It’s the information than matters, not the medium. This is an encyclopedia we’re talking about, after all. Encyclopedias are all about the information.
I went to a Monet exhibition with my sister last week. Seeing the actual paintings was very different than seeing photos or prints, because the medium was an important part of the composition. The thickness and texture of the painting was an essential component of the art work. In that case, the medium makes a huge difference. This is simply not the case when we’re talking about an encyclopedia.
There are a lot of people at websites all over the internet carrying on about how awful this is. When I read their posts, they go on about how much they loved the set of encyclopedias that their parents bought or that their grand-parents bought. Almost none of them are talking about the set of encyclopedias they themselves bought. If they think the end of hardcopy editions of the encyclopedia is such a tragedy, they should have done something to prevent that by buying a set or two themselves. More people buying the hardcopy is the one and only thing that would have prevented this.
They should call this the “Solar Flare” edition… something to refer to while we rebuild our electronic infrastructure after the next Carrington Event.
We can also read 8″ floppies today too, Paul. All you’ve gotta do is buy a reader for it. There’s lots of them available. You can’t get them at Best Buy or Walmart; but if you run a search for them online, they’re not at all difficult to find. Very easy to buy on eBay. Post an add in your local paper saying you want to buy an 8″ floppy drive. I bet you’ll get hundreds of offers from people who have them lying around collecting dust.
We live in an economic age where too much is in flux and buying things like an expensive set of encyclopedias is going to be on the bottom of the list of ‘must haves’ when you’re worried about meeting your obligations to keep family in food and home. In many cases (from people I’ve talked to), the case is not that they didn’t buy because they didn’t want to, but only that they couldn’t justify the expense or they live in such cramped quarters that they couldn’t fit them in anyway.
Personally, I have nothing against ebooks. Most of my own books are in ebook format only, and I adore my Nook. I will have the Britannica set in epublication format, too.
However . . . .
The print volumes are wondrous works for printed art, and seeing them discontinued after over 200 years in print is something to mark and regret. Even useful things can be beautifully made, after all. I adore ebooks, but that doesn’t mean I can’t love printed books as well. Though their primary use is always to relate information, there is an esoteric connection to the books for themselves.
I’m glad the information will still be available. I’ll continue to make use of it. I’m still sorry to see them stop the print editions, though.
This reminds me of something else that’s changed. I’m in the midst of scanning in thousands of slides from the 1980’s. Many of these are on film I developed myself. My darkroom equipment is still stored away because I just can’t bring myself to get rid of it, even though I doubt I’ll ever go back to the work. I loved doing black and white photography and prints and as much as I love the new digital age of photography (which is certainly a lot cheaper!), I still miss developing and printing my own work.
We live in an age where things are obviously changing. Much of it is for the better, but we’re still losing some pieces of the past many of us grew up with and enjoyed.
I love digital photography. I started a Picture-A-Day blog back on January 1, 2006 where I post a picture taken on that day and I’ve not missed one (http://zettepicaday.blogspot.com/ ). I could never have done something like this with print, of course. And scanning the slides in is fun because I can finally see them again. So, overall, I’m glad to have this change, even though I miss some of the other work.
That’s life. Things will keep changing. There’ s nothing wrong with nothing the changes and regretting the loss of some things, even when what you have may be technically better.
I know what you mean about the photography. I used to do a lot of b&w photography myself. I spent about 2-wks living in a darkroom when I was putting my thesis together. I have a certain feeling of nostalgia for the old way of doing it, but I would never go back to darkrooms. Digital is sooo much better and vastly less expensive.
I’ve still got a lot of print books too, of course. There’s no way I could afford to replace them all with ebooks. Even when buying books I don’t already own copies of, I still buy used copies when I can, purely to save money. Most of the books on my Kindle were public domain works that I got very cheap or for free.