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

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: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