In the previous installment, we saw that Penguin had done weird stuff typographically. And now I understand why.
In the back of the book is a “List of Variants”, which details minutely what manuscripts have been used. I mean, important stuff like “La” vs “la”.
And they list these variants based on page and line numbers.
This was done for the previous, un-annotated edition. So when they wanted to add some footnotes, they either had to re-do the entire “List of Variants”, or do it the easy/hard way by just pasting in new lines (in a narrower typescript) here and there.
It’s all so logical.
I was reading Tender is the Night and was puzzling over the typesetting. The foreword and the index is set in a very clear, narrow typeface, while the text itself looks old and worn.
This is unfortunately an annotated edition, which I loathe. I wouldn’t have bought it if I’d known.
But that doesn’t make sense. If it’s a new, annotated edition, why does is look so worn and old-timey?
Then I noticed. Just look at it. The single line that has the annotation “15” is set in a narrower typeface that also looks crisper. Just look at those to “but”s.
So the cheap bastards just cut out the lines where they wanted to have an annotation, re-set it in the narrower font to make room for the annotation, and then pasted the result back in.
I didn’t know that doing stuff like that was even possible in these digital days. It’s practially midieval.
This seems to explain the weird tendency Linux has to swap out huge processes, even when there’s plenty of free memory. I’ve always wondered why that happens. Short answer: ccNUMA. Long answer here.
And also this.
I bought this catch-and-release fly catcher… gun… a few weeks back. But, despite the warmest March ever (or something), I hadn’t seen a single fly since getting the device.
It works! I caught the fly and released it out the window. I didn’t really think it would work, because the suction kinda sucks.
So humane. And fewer streaks on the walls.