Question

[rolanni]

Several folks have offered to scan the papers we're looking to get rid of, and several others have pointed me at scanners. All of this concern and good advice is appreciated, but. . .

I don't understand why I would want to be scanning the papers.

Obviously, I'm missing something.

Somebody point out the elephant, please?

Thanks.

Comments

[sraun]

We're thinking of history. One of the laments I've heard about the rise of authors using computers is that we're loosing the evolution of books - we've got the printed copy, but we don't have any of the drafts. While what you've got may not be the very first draft, it's at least the first draft submitted to the editor, which is something. So we'd like to have them all in one place.

If you turn around and tell us that you actually have known readable versions of the text of all these in electronic format already, we won't care as much.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

If you turn around and tell us that you actually have known readable versions of the text of all these in electronic format already, we won't care as much.

No, I can't tell you that. The WordStar files for _Conflict_ and _Carpe_ are long gone, and _Agent_, at least, was typewritten all the way from draft one to submission; there never was an electronic copy.

...and yet, the submission draft is only a draft. The finished book as right as author, copy editor and editor can make it, is the thing. . .

[sraun]

Yet, part of the interest of some/many people is seeing the evolution of the story from first words to paper to published copy.

I know one author who was (and probably still is) auto-saving his drafts every five minutes, automatically making backup copies every hour, and archiving every night. If the historians ever take an interest in how his stories developed, there's going to be treasure trove of material available for them.

Oh - yes, he wrote in a format that was ASCII w/ magic markup, and the last I heard his preferred format was either HTML or OpenOffice XML.