page146
124
cory doctorow
* Luther Bibles lacked the manufacturing quality of the illumi-
nated Bibles. They were comparatively cheap and lacked the typo-
graphical expressiveness that a really talented monk could bring
to bear when writing out the word of God.
* Luther Bibles were utterly unsuited to the traditional use-
case for Bibles. A good Bible was supposed to reinforce the au-
thority of the man at the pulpit. It needed heft, it needed impres-
siveness, and most of all, it needed rarity.
* The user-experience of Luther Bibles sucked. There was no
incense, no altar boys, and who (apart from the priesthood) knew
that reading was so friggin’ hard on the eyes?
* Luther Bibles were a lot less trustworthy than the illumi-
nated numbers. Anyone with a press could run one off, subbing
in any apocryphal text he wanted — and who knew how accurate
that translation was? Monks had an entire Papacy behind them,
running a quality-assurance operation that had stood Europe in
good stead for centuries.
In the late nineties, I went to conferences where music execs
patiently explained that Napster was doomed, because you didn’t
get any cover-art or liner-notes with it, you couldn’t know if the
rip was any good, and sometimes the connection would drop
mid-download. I’m sure that many cardinals espoused the points
raised above with equal certainty.
What the record execs and the cardinals missed was all the
ways that Luther Bibles kicked ass:
[CHART: WHY LUTHER BIBLES KICKED ASS]
* They were cheap and fast. Loads of people could acquire them
without having to subject themselves to the authority and ap-
proval of the Church.
Content 2nd gal final.indd 124
7/4/08 9:57:09 AM