Let's talk about the encyclopedia. . .

[Guestx]

(Note: What follows ended up being a bigger production than I originally intended. It's a product of nostalgia and, I guess, a desire to inform about an interesting bit of history. I'd be interested in hearing any of your own thoughts or memories on the subject.)


So last night I was just chilling and, I'm not sure why, but a question hit me: Are there any English encyclopedias still being printed? That is, can you still order an actual set of encyclopedias to sit on your bookshelf?

And that got me to thinking about encyclopedias in general. And it got me to reminiscing about the old days, when I was a kid and would pull down random volumes of my family's World Book set and flip through them. One thing that came back to me was when I was about seven years old and I read an article about airplanes, and I started making plans to build a plane out of wood that was stacked up in the backyard.

​

So I went down a minor rabbit hole, reading about encyclopedias. I found out that, in the US at least, there were three major ones, sometimes referred to as the ABCs: the Encyclopedia Americana, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Colliers Encyclopedia. In addition, there was also the previously mentioned World Book, as well as a fifth option, Funk and Wagnalls.

Collier's described their encyclopedia thusly: "A scholarly, systematic, continuously revised summary of the knowledge that is most significant to mankind." And that stood out to me, this idea that we have these self-contained general knowledge sets meant to give anyone a solid overview of nearly any topic.

But it surprised me that Americana and Colliers were considered among the top three, because I had never heard of them. I had, of course, heard of Britannica though, as I'm sure we all have.

​

But I also remembered the fifth, and perhaps most humble of those mentioned, Funk and Wagnalls, and I want to talk about that for a minute. Funk and Wagnalls was unique in that, instead of dropping $1,000+ at one time for a full set, they marketed their encyclopedia through supermarkets. Volumes would be released individually and ads encouraged people to put the next volume on their shopping list. Once all volumes had been purchased you'd have a complete set!

I remember this because one of my local grocery stores carried Funk and Wagnalls in the mid-90s. I think I ended up collecting all of about two volumes. I guess I didn't get very far.

​

Of course as time went on people began to turn toward computers for information, and digital encyclopedias began hitting the market. A couple of early ones included Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia (1989) and the New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (1992). But I'm sure the one that most people here remember is Microsoft Encarta, which first arrived in 1993.

​

The benefit of these multimedia encyclopedias is one that I think still exists today, and that is specifically the ability to embed sound and video to supplement the text. But nevertheless, Encarta didn't last and ended its run in 2009.

While to my knowledge Microsoft has never stated it, the reason for this is widely speculated to be the rise of Wikipedia. Not much needs to be said about this. We all know what Wikipedia is and I'd make the guess that these days it's the ONLY encyclopedia that anyone here uses. (If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it.)

But let's bring this discussion full circle. . .

​

It began with a question: Are there any major English encyclopedias still available in a print edition?

Well, Funk and Wagnalls stop printing theirs in 1997, with Colliers following their lead the next year. The Americana made it all the way to 2006, with the company ending their print run despite claiming that sales were still good.

So that leaves two: Britannica and World Book.

In 2012, Britannica called it quits (in printed form at least, they still have digital offerings). The final printing sold out quickly, with the set going for $1600.

​

And then there was one. A final man standing, and curiously enough, also the same encyclopedia that I started with: World Book.

That's right. There is still ONE MAJOR ENCYCLOPEDIA that you can purchase in print form and put on your bookshelf for everyone to see. For $999, they will be happy to send you the 22-volume 2016 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia.

The only question now is how much longer will that last?

 

[bad seed]

The World Book along with the supplemental Childcraft set was my jam when I was a kid.

Great fuel for an inquisitive young mind.

 

[John Wang]

I just google shit that I want to know

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I use to have the book o' pedias too when I was a wee lad. This is before the Wiki. I read the shitty out of them. I knew so much trivia as a teen, I should have gone on the Who wants to be a millionaire slumdog style.

But the company that prints the encyclopedia tried to go online even before the Wikipedia. However, it was terribad. I dont know why they did not put more effort into going digital.

 

[MusterX]

Shadow_Priest_X strikes at you with pain and suffering but misses.

You brought back many memories of how things used to be. First of all, my family had a partial set of the ghetto Funk and Wagnalls. Man, I wish I still had those. I don't recall Colliers, even vaguely. One of my sons was doing homework recently and it occurred to me that he has access to the sum of human knowledge without leaving his chair and he doesn't even grasp how huge that is. Its just normalcy to him. He's never known anything different.

I can remember growing up doing homework and I had rwo options. Find what I needed in my textbook, or go to the public library and spend hours there delving through the Dewey Decimal System of books, which by the way, is not even in use anymore in many libraries. If you wanted to look something up you must first locate a book that might have that information, it would be helpful to have an author's name in mind. Then you had to go to that location in the library and search the shelves until you find that book. Then you must begin delving through the book, reading as quickly as possible. Maybe a half hour later you might find a paragraph that you are looking for. So from the time you got your mom to take you to the library and drop you off until the time you started finding information you need, perhaps an hour or two have already elapsed.

My son accomplishes this task in around 8 seconds and has no idea what a big deal that really is. To tell you the truth, I don't see how anything in print survives, not just encyclopedia's. Newspapers, magazines, libraries, all of it. The next victim to tech after that is cable television which I think unless they radically change are doomed. My kids, for example, don't even watch cable T.V. We all have computers. When they get out on their own, its an entire generation of kids that will not be purchasing cable television.

 

[ehtheist]

I actually have a full set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in a cool wooden stand. Good fun to give it a look through some time... Some of the things it has in the "Africa" entry are very un-PC. Keeping this thing pristine - it's an heirloom.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Indubitably

 

[Skip Reming]

i had a set as a kid


not sure why I am thinking about this, you ever read OMNI magazine? they used to have it on internet archive for free but it got removed...but not before I downloaded all those shits
boom

 

[Guestx]

Shadow_Priest_X strikes at you with pain and suffering but misses.

You brought back many memories of how things used to be. First of all, my family had a partial set of the ghetto Funk and Wagnalls. Man, I wish I still had those. I don't recall Colliers, even vaguely. One of my sons was doing homework recently and it occurred to me that he has access to the sum of human knowledge without leaving his chair and he doesn't even grasp how huge that is. Its just normalcy to him. He's never known anything different.

I can remember growing up doing homework and I had rwo options. Find what I needed in my textbook, or go to the public library and spend hours there delving through the Dewey Decimal System of books, which by the way, is not even in use anymore in many libraries. If you wanted to look something up you must first locate a book that might have that information, it would be helpful to have an author's name in mind. Then you had to go to that location in the library and search the shelves until you find that book. Then you must begin delving through the book, reading as quickly as possible. Maybe a half hour later you might find a paragraph that you are looking for. So from the time you got your mom to take you to the library and drop you off until the time you started finding information you need, perhaps an hour or two have already elapsed.

My son accomplishes this task in around 8 seconds and has no idea what a big deal that really is. To tell you the truth, I don't see how anything in print survives, not just encyclopedia's. Newspapers, magazines, libraries, all of it. The next victim to tech after that is cable television which I think unless they radically change are doomed. My kids, for example, don't even watch cable T.V. We all have computers. When they get out on their own, its an entire generation of kids that will not be purchasing cable television.

I want to address a few of your points here. . .

I wonder how many people ever actually completed their Funk and Wagnall's sets. I bet 90%+ of people who bought their first volume never went on to complete the entire set. I wish that I had. There would've been something cool about having a complete A-Z collection of those motherfuckers.

Regarding libraries, you know, I suspect that most people never set foot in their public library anymore, but I was just there today. In fact, while I was there I looked for the 2016 edition of World Book just to see if they had it, and indeed they did. What impresses me about libraries is that they have found ways to stay relevant. While there is the usual service of lending books, my library also has a large collection of DVDs and CDs, and they also put on a lot of special events like workshops of various kinds, film screenings, and art shows. I love the library and am a big supporter.

As for the future of print, while I understand your concern, I don't completely agree. I still like to pickup a magazine from time to time. It's a different kind of presentation than you find online. But more than that, I still buy a lot of books. I still haven't jumped onto the eBook bandwagon and I still enjoy holding a physical book in my hand as well as having a collection of books around for the purpose of giving my place character. Not only that, but with eBooks you never really OWN the book.

But getting back to encyclopedias, I do think that the end is nigh when it comes to printed encyclopedias, which in this case means World Book. There are just too many advantages to digital. Hyperlinking, embedded audio and video, and the ability to constantly have access to the most up-to-date information are just a few of the reasons I can think of that a digital encyclopedia is superior to the old hardbound stalwarts. If in 10 years, or even five years really, World Book is still being printed, I'll be pretty surprised.

Lastly, I want to address your comments about having access to all information via the Internet. That's not true. I know a lot of people say it, but it's not true. If it were, I wouldn't still be buying books. The Internet is certainly a treasure trove of information, but in my opinion it's not always the best place to go DEEP with a subject. I think the Internet is often best to use as a way to gain a general understanding of a topic, but then it's often necessary to get off the computer and open a book (or several of them) to go deeper and really round out your knowledge about whatever it is that you're studying.

 

[Guestx]

I actually have a full set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in a cool wooden stand. Good fun to give it a look through some time... Some of the things it has in the "Africa" entry are very un-PC. Keeping this thing pristine - it's an heirloom.

That's pretty awesome. I was actually just thinking last night that I'd like to either have a vintage Britannica set or I'd like to have the final set that was produced in 2012. Either one would be cool.

 

[Guestx]

The World Book along with the supplemental Childcraft set was my jam when I was a kid.

Great fuel for an inquisitive young mind.

That looks pretty sweet. I wish I had spent more time reading and just generally educating myself as a kid.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I actually have a full set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica in a cool wooden stand. Good fun to give it a look through some time... Some of the things it has in the "Africa" entry are very un-PC. Keeping this thing pristine - it's an heirloom.

Some of my older relatives have a similar set of Encyclopedias. Some of the shit in there is pure South Park style comedy (Indians as well as Africa), yet the tome-like nature of the book, font and illustrations gives it the feel of the most sacred knowledge.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Anyone remember the Encyclopedia Britannica commercials?

"Right on cue"

 

[Guestx]

Anyone remember the Encyclopedia Britannica commercials?

"Right on cue"

I didn't but you inspired me to look some up. . .

 

[Guestx]

LOL. "Oliver Stone's World Book Encyclopedia"

 

[Guestx]

Might die of cuteness from this. . .

 

[MusterX]

Lastly, I want to address your comments about having access to all information via the Internet. That's not true. I know a lot of people say it, but it's not true. If it were, I wouldn't still be buying books. The Internet is certainly a treasure trove of information, but in my opinion it's not always the best place to go DEEP with a subject. I think the Internet is often best to use as a way to gain a general understanding of a topic, but then it's often necessary to get off the computer and open a book (or several of them) to go deeper and really round out your knowledge about whatever it is that you're studying.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I love books, I have so many of them my wife wants to burn them because they take up so much space. I'm comparing what it was like for me growing up to my kids. I didn't have information at my fingertips the way they do so I had to spend hours trying to accomplish what they do in 20 minutes. Alot of young people these days aren't into the book thing. If they can't hammer it out on a telephone or a computer in a few seconds they lose interest. Even on Sherdog if something is beyond 18 words its TL/DR. That isn't a good trend.

 

[TeTe]

I remember some of those cool encyclopedias that were posted from when I was kid.

I didn't own them though. I grew up with my grandparents and they had a set that was from like the 1960s. Black covers, boring looking, smelled like old paper.

 

[Guestx]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I love books, I have so many of them my wife wants to burn them because they take up so much space. I'm comparing what it was like for me growing up to my kids. I didn't have information at my fingertips the way they do so I had to spend hours trying to accomplish what they do in 20 minutes. Alot of young people these days aren't into the book thing. If they can't hammer it out on a telephone or a computer in a few seconds they lose interest. Even on Sherdog if something is beyond 18 words its TL/DR. That isn't a good trend.

Indeed. Well in that case I understand.

Yeah, it's not a good trend. What does the future hold in this regard? What is the future of print in general? I really don't know.

I've talked about the drawbacks of technology many times around here. Its effects are definitely not 100% positive.

BTW, on this note, you might find this interesting:

 

[Guestx]

I grew up with my grandparents and they had a set that was from like the 1960s. Black covers, boring looking, smelled like old paper.

That's an interesting comment. World Book looks like this now:

Apparently every year it's a new design. Often it's wildlife, but I know once it was space shit, another year it was American iconography, another year it was sports. . .

One one hand I think it's cool and is a way to continue to sort of look hip and appeal to younger people. But on the other I take them less seriously and would prefer a more traditional look.