Yesterday, while looking for something else, I discovered this website. I am surprised that I had not heard about this before. “The Book Guys” is a weekly NPR program about the world of books and book collecting hosted by Mike Cuthbert and appraiser and bookseller Allan Stypeck.
Many public radio stations broadcast this program, but you can also listen to live broadcasts online on Saturdays at 8 PM. There is also an online archives with current and past programs.
This morning I listened to the January 30th interview with Jesse Sheidlower, editor of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The interview covers topics such as the selection of words for the OED and the dominance of American English as a standard for English speakers worldwide. However, the interesting part of this conversation was the discussion about the future of the printed version of the OED.
As much as I love the online version, I find it disconcerting to think that the next edition of the printed version may be the last. I must admit I am the type of person who read dictionaries for entertainment as a child. I have always thought of reference works, especially the multivolume sets, as vast, unexplored territories of information. Although I often advocate for technology, I cannot imagine spending a rainy day browsing an online dictionary for hours.
This, of course, is not a conventional view. While most people balk at the idea of reading books for pleasure in an electronic format, few balk at the idea of converting reference works into online databases and CD-ROMs. In fact, it is a trend in library acquisitions to phase out printed reference collections for digital ones, and publishers of reference materials are following this trend by producing more databases and CD-ROMs and fewer printed volumes.
At this time, the OED spans 20 volumes and costs nearly $1000 ($895 plus shipping according to the Oxford University Press website). Given the cost and size, the online version is superior to the print version. Users find the online version easier to use since they do not need to leave their computer to look up a word. Libraries do not have to worry about (the always pressing concern of) finding shelf space. Everyone wins, right?
Unless, you factor in the value of learning through serendipity. Allan Stypeck, one of “The Book Guys”, made a good point during the discussion on the possible demise of the printed OED. In defense of printed reference works, he said, “the beauty of learning is the curiosity of going one step further than you need to know.” When using a printed reference work, you may be sidetracked by an interesting guideword or a curious phrase in an index. Another entry on a page may catch your eye. You pick up volume thirteen instead of volume twelve and discover something new.
I think using printed bibliographies and catalogues you also get a sense of the bibliographer or cataloguer and his or her way of organizing knowledge. Yesterday, I was introduced to some of the reference sources for incunables. Most are confusing to the uninitiated, and it is by learning to use these materials that one becomes an expert. Of course, I would love to have a searchable database at my desk and not have to bother my co-workers with my novice questions. At the same time, I cannot imagine being a rare book librarian limited to my own inadequate vocabulary of keywords and subject terms.
Perhaps, I am being snobby and elitist–or even–gasp!–old-fashioned, but most my knowledge comes from the serendipity factor. My only hope is that future database designers will consider this when constructing online versions of the classic reference sources.