I agree with you that many different designs can be appropriate for a text, and that some will not be. But I think that this is evidence that the design and physical form of a text are not 'crucial' to its content, in agreement with our intuitions about different editions of texts. It seems rather opaque to attempt instead to identify what is 'crucial' with what is 'appropriate'. If something is crucial, it is because it is necessary in some way, something have a certain appropriateness is closer to its being sufficient than necessary.
On 4 October 2010 23:42, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > There are many ways by which a design may be fully appropriate or > "crucial". I > am not contradicting myself. There is no one best. I like Bloom's > comment > about Don Quixote: "It supports any theory you bring to it". I think > something > analogous applies in the relation between a book design and the text it > contains. To say that many designs might be appropriate is not to say ANY > design, of course. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rupert Dasilva <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 5:30:24 PM > Subject: Re: Typography and literature > > > The content is the reader's interpretation of a context evoked by the > text. > > There could be many, many different designs for the same text. > > > I'm sorry if I am not understanding you correctly, but I don't understand > how the above > responds to my query. You seem to be implying that you do not see the > design > of a > text as being as 'crucial' as I interpreted you as claiming previously. In > which case, > how should I understand the sense of the term 'crucial' in order to > reconcile this with > your claim that > > 'The design of the text and the whole book format is crucial to the > content'?
