Warning: This post discusses my website a lot. Please forgive me that.
I deemed the replies from Carrol, George and Ken too short to prod me
spending kiloseconds on more kilobytes of archive fodder. But Marcia
and Nancy can be blamed for getting me to write way too much here.
Marcia Karp wrote:
> Ken is getting to what I had in mind.
A good point but it responds to George's bringing in the topic of
analysis and doesn't address either quantity or quality of annotation.
> Rather than choosing between too much or not enough, doesn't an
> edition (which your website is, Rick) have to be published with
> principles in mind?
In most cases that would be true for a book. Publishers have to be
persuaded that their reputations won't be hurt. With self publishing
the work could be whatever the author wanted at the time of publishing
and place in the text. I do have a idea of what to include. With
the web medium I can get away with some of this sloppiness in at least
two ways: I can update the webpages or the entire design of the site
and I can categorize links to different types of material so the
reader can select what to read. This leads me to discuss a fault of
my site though, it has lots of different kind of material for all
levels but doesn't direct the readers as to how to get the best use of
the site for their need. If I smile nicely and talk sweetly I might
be able to get away with a lot of faults by pointing out the word
"Exploring" in the site's title. :-)
> Most editors announce theirs in prefatory matter,
I do have vague principles in mind but none written down. I suppose
that they should be, but laziness in writing and doubt that a preface
would be read in the web environment means that I'll spend more time
thinking about it than doing it.
> although the principles might be badly chosen or not be followed.
Should a writer that does present his design be critized for following
them? In what way? For example, if I wrote a webpage on why I chose
to implement most of my site with frames, how should a frame hater
judge the site? Maybe by saying the site would be better without them
(I doubt it) but would simply saying "I HATE frames" be fair criticism?
> In what contexts is more better? or appropriate?
Personally I'm still working on this question. Novices to TWL should
have some way of whittling down the amount they have to read. At my
site they could avoid links labelled as "bio" or "misc" but what about
"allusion" pages. Do **novices** really need to know about the
"Parliament of Bees" and Actaeon and Diana? I have a page or two that
indicates that I have a copy of the material being alluded to but that
it really isn't worth a lot to novices but that kind of commentary can
wear thin after a bit.
> The March Hare has a particular layout, but it might have had others.
> So, too, your website. Is that what you meant by style, Rick?
Mainly, but the tone of writing also. Something less academic
possibly could have gotten someone to pick up the book that wouldn't
have otherwise. This is not a criticism of Ricks' work, just an
example of something that would be deemed style. Eliot's editorial
remarks in his essays also come to mind (what was it "only those with
a point "
> Editing is more than proofreading or compiling.
And there are additional points to consider with web publishing.
That's enough, except to say I hope to have a site update done soon
that will include a fix to the feature that drove people nuts. No,
not frames, those damn ugly background colors (there was a technical
reason for them that has pretty much dissolved.)