HPSCHD-L Archives

Harpsichords and Related Topics

HPSCHD-L@LIST.UIOWA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Harpsichords and Related Topics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 19 May 2007 13:30:01 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
At 03:02 PM 5/19/2007 -0400, Paul wrote:
>The subscription price to the end of June is 98 Euros, and it falls
>into the fat book (805pp) category.


I've been an information freak all my life, and it intrigues me that the 
thickness of books is a "category."  Have I missed something along the 
line?  Are there "good" fat books and "bad" fat books, or are they all 
lumped together?

Many seem to consider Jorgensen's big red book on tuning a bad book, but I 
just bought a copy of the 64th Edition of Chapman's "Piloting and 
Seamanship" on sale at half price at B. Dalton, and I have the impression 
that it's OK.  Those books are about the same size, and both are fun to 
browse.  Both can be used as door stops.  The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and 
Physics is also about the same size. I've also got a few fairly fat books 
about things like audio file formats and computer language user's 
references, and I think they have to be thick in order to convey the 
desired information.  On the other hand, I recently bought on line a CD 
containing a bunch of service manuals for BMW bikes, and it's not fat at 
all.  I guess I like fat books with pictures better than those without, fwiw.


JB

ATOM RSS1 RSS2