I think I, and any other followers of this thread, will need an example of "not getting the words from the words".
Okay, let's go over a number of simple examples: Consider Michael's thesis of the "goodness" of viewing PG texts on cellphones. Which is a "good" submission format for submitting a transcription of Shakespeare to be read on a cellphone, PG txt format, or HTML? Answer: Neither file format works worth a dang for specifying Shakespeare to be read on cellphones. Yet both file formats contain the lists of the words. -- Even 400 years ago authors understood the importance of formatting and printing decisions to represent the meanings of words -- artistic writings ARE NOT just lists of words -- even when those words are clearly intended to be spoken out loud. Here's a brief excerpt from Dove: "'Go?'" he wondered. "Go when, go where?" And another one: She particularly likes you. Yes, you can read these words and you will assign meanings to these words but you will not get the author's intent because the author understood that he needed to put additional information in the printing so that you can understand his intent. This is particularly important in the Henry James because what he is writing is deliberately ambiguous and confusing in the first place, so much so that he has to disambiguate in order to reduce the degree of ambiguity in what he is writing -- while still deliberately leaving the reader dazed and confused -- but not so confused as to think (incorrectly) that they understand what is going on. I guess I can put some txt representation of Tristram Shandy here, but what would be the point? He's gone! said my uncle Toby Where? Who? cried my father My nephew, said my uncle Toby What, without leave, without money, without governor? cried my father in amazement No he is dead, my dear brother, quoth my uncle Toby Without being ill? cried my father again I dare say not, said my uncle Toby, in a low voice, and fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart; he has been ill enough, poor lad! I'll answer for him, for he is dead. Yes, once again, you can read the words and you will assign meaning to them -- but not the meaning intended by the author, because the txt is missing information that the author found important to include so that you can understand his meaning -- to the extent that he wanted you to understand his meaning which again was partial in the first place. I'm not saying that there is no place in the world for txt -- as archy demonstrated clearly back in 1916: expression is the need of my soul And you can read this entire email and still come back and complain that you don't understand what I am talking about and in making this complaint you once again make my point for me: The reason that you don't understand what I am talking about is that I am writing this email using txt and the authors given as examples above were writing in a style requiring representation richer than mere PG txt. Go and find the author's original representations and read them there because PG txt simply doesn't cut it to represent their work. Read what they wrote and ask yourself what it takes to actually implement the author's intent, either automagically, or even semiautomagically, on a variety of differing reader devices -- including, but not limited to -- teletypes and their software emulators [which is essentially what txt devices are, including this email system and notepad, etc PS: If you can read this email at all please note that it's because I *didn't* write it following PG txt conventions.