1660 Diary Becomes 2003 Weblog

EnlightenmentFan writes "When technology improves a book that was already good, that's good news for nerds. I'm not talking about the Two Towers, but the diary of Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) (pronounced Peeps, as in marshmallow peeps), whose diaries record not only the Great Fire of London and the plague but his many seductions, trickeries, encounters with the king, almost getting executed, etc. Brit blogger Phil Gyford realized that this diary would make a great weblog--clickable footnotes, online feedback and all. So now he is serializing it daily, starting Jan 2, 1660, supposedly over the next ten years. The BBC has the backstory. I hope Gyford will deviate from Gutenberg's 1893 version to include some of Pepys's more outrageous sexual adventures, reduced by the 1893 version to "....""

Comments

Well lets hope

[TerryAtWork]

The good stuff isn't lost to history - you never know how many great works are destroyed by censors. Did Shakespear ever recover from being Bowlderized?

Same as it ever was

[The Llama King]

While I'm as big a fan of weblogs as anyone, I gotta say this just proves a point I've been making for a while ... there's not much really cutting edge about them. They're diaries that happen to have hyperlinks. The only reason they get read, I think, I is people like to look in other people's windows.

And the view is a lot more interesting in some of those windows than others. Pepys lived a life that's a lot more interesting than almost anything today.

Re:Same as it ever was

[mgaiman]

But the difference between a standard blog and, for example, Pepys Diary, is the audience. Weblogs are meant to be viewed by anyway, by everyone.

Pepys diary was encoded and the code wasn't even cracked until long after his death. This, you get a brutally honest portrayal of what actually happened. Whereas with blogs, basically people are just trying to prove how witty they can be.

Why is this an improvement?

[KludgeGrrl]

I'm all for folks reading the "great men" of the past (and the women too), but even after reading the BBC link I'm at a loss to see what makes this medium an improvement.

Yes, you can read a little bit each day -- but is that not equally possible with a book (or even the online version of the diary)?

Yes, people can add comments explaining the "archaic" English (according to the article), but should I trust these explanations? How many Samula Pepys experts will be following this, and how many yowzers?

Blogs can be great tools, but I don't see how in this particular case the medium is especially useful. There's so much hype about technology improving learning, but after watching many a powerpoint presentation, I'm wary of too much hoopla with too little benefit.

But hey, the internet really does need more blogs, so I guess a new one can only be a good thing ;)

Re:Why is this an improvement?

[fabius]

Yes, you can read an entry from a book each day, but for many people these days, who read a number of sites (like /.) every day, it's easier to slot another website into that routine.

There's no reason you should trust the annotations any more than on any other site (like /.). You have to use your own judgement.

Re:Why is this an improvement?

[WotanKhan]

" Yes, you can read an entry from a book each day, but for many people these days, who read a number of sites (like /.) every day, it's easier to slot another website into that routine."

In other words, most of us don't get paid for time spent reading nontechnical books. Websites on the other hand...

Re:blogs from history happen ...

[mnemotronic]

I personally think this is a cool way to teach history. I'd like to see more of this on the high-school level as a means of familiarizing students with the great men and women of antiquity on a personal level.

Perhaps blogs might work as a supplimentary source, but not as a replacement for actually reading the assigned text. What happens next week when blogging becomes passe? Is this promoting form over content ("I'll read Marie Antoinette's web log, but pick up a book?!?! Yucko! That is just so 20th century"). Is it the job of educators to reformat content to display in the currently accepted paradigm, which is likely to be supplanted before the reformatting is complete?

Old lies

[Faeton]

So instead of 21st century boasts, lies, gossip and fibs, we have 17th century boasts, lies, gossip and fibs.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This story, in and of itself. . .

[kfg]

presents the answer to a question posed to me here on Slashdot a few days ago when I was talking about eBooks and Project Gutenberg.

What happens when the language changes only scholars can read Dickens and Twain?

This is what happens.

This can only happen *because* the work is in the public domain and presents one of the greatest arguments for works not remaining in the private domain overlong.

It also serves as a great example of the true social utility of a free internet and I applaud the author for making this great literary and historical document accessable in a modern and entertaining manner.

KFG

Re:Another blog from the past

[dr_dank]

I've read the book A Midwife's Tale transcribed from the diary in the above post. Its an excellent read.

What would have been dismissed at the time as the mundane details of a New England midwife has proven to be an invaluable historical register of the area. Births, deaths, business transactions, travel routes, etc all preserved for future study.

What better way to learn about history but from the perspective of the one who lived it (to the best of the writers recollection, anyway).

Re:blogs from history happen ...

[belloc]

Depends on if you consider it to be history, or fantasy.

He's talking about actual historical people here. What they believed in (religiously or politically) is another matter entirely. Surely you are not questioning the historicity of Clement of Rome or Gregory of Nyssa here? What's next, questioning the historical existence of Julius Caesar?

And if you consider them to be "great men."

Or are you just bashing them because they were Christians? Is that what you meant by "fantasy"?

If that is the case, that would bring up an interesting follow-up point: say someone made a blog out of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars". Caesar believed in Roman gods, and his political scheme included murdering his enemies and their families to become Emporer of the World. Would you make some crack about "fantasy" in that case just because you don't believe in his religion or disagree with his politics?

Belloc