A Digital Generation: Reading Online

Kenneth Price's Electronic Scholarly Editions: A review and more by Sarah Butcher

I've been debating on topics for a final project for my text class (the one I'm writing the blog for) and I've stumbled upon quite a few ideas/topics that I think could be interesting to explore. Narrowing my topics down, and after reading Price's article, I'm becoming more and more enthralled by the idea of private online publication vs. private tangible writing (journaling and diary entries to be more precise). You might be wondering what this has to do with Price's article, but hear me out.

The more and more we read about aura, originality, authorship, textness, publication, etc., the more I wonder about the relationship between printed text and virtual text. (And just to clarify, I'm defining text in this sense as the written words). In his article, Price discusses the "transformation of scholarly publication" as it begins to take a "digital form" versus its original print form. Aspects of economic benefits and information storage are other key aspects identified, but the issues I'd like to work out are the ones he mentions in the very beginning of his article. In particular, I find the following quotations to be the most helpful:

"we find that digital work has achieved primacy only for editions"

"no one is expressing great confidence in our ability to preserve them"

"Jerome McGann has argued that the entirety of our cultural heritage will need to be re-edited in accord with the new possibilities of the digital medium "

The preservation of text is an issue that we haven't really looked at very closely, yet so much of TEXT comes down to its ephemeral-ness. Is it meant to last? Yes or no? Why or why not? What makes one text preservable and another not? How does a text's ephemerality effect its value?

As we make our way into the Digital World, or for some of us grow with the Digital World, we become less and less concerned with the preservation of text and more concerned with the production of text. A digital medium allows for instantaneous publication on multiple platforms (blogs, facebook, youtube, pinterest, flickr, photobucket) through multiple avenues (video, audio, text, recorded, live, images, etc.). And the idea of losing this information isn't even a second thought, because everything is saved somewhere on some version of icloud where both highly intelligent and mundane information come together.

Our generation (20 somethings) and those who are now growing up on computers (19 and younger) don't bother with writing things down on hard copy because we don't need to. In fact, most of the time we don't even bother going to the library because most up-to-date scholarly information is available in digital forms.

So does the information that is mounted online still have value or does it lose that effect once we can no longer hold it in our hands?

Is this

not just as valuable as this

if what we value is the information and not the platform it is displayed upon?

Intertextuality: The Virtual Database

~the double-edged sword of a virtual database~

Both the brilliance and the downfall of a virtual database is based upon its vast expanse of accessible information. From original copies to present day reviews and criticisms, the William Blake Archive contains enough information to keep someone busy for a lifetime. As an archivist intern working for the English department at Florida State University, I can see many advantages to having a virtual database. Years worth of research is at the tips of my fingers, and yet I can't help but regard the same database as missing a key element in all research: originality. With so much information present on the William Blake archive, I hardly know where to begin. The site is organized and thought-provoking (by this I mean to say that the site pushes for a certain way of thinking).

For example, by providing certain specific links, the creator of the website steers the audience to look at Blake's work in a certain way, structuring the writings by Illuminated Books, Commercial Book Illustrations, etc. This layout structures a certain reading of Blake that disrupts the natural tendency that is original to each researcher. Personally, when I research I start by looking at the most popular works by an author, then look at less popular works, and then I make up my own assumption about the pieces before consulting others commentary/criticisms. Upon accessing the site, my first action was to open each link and to see how far the archive extended. The accessibility to so much information took away the intimacy with the individual works.

While a virtual database allows for immediate access to a plethora of works and information, it denies the researcher the intimacy that comes with seeing and touching the original work first hand. For example, the other day Strozier library had an exhibition where they displayed a text we had discussed in class: The King James Bible. Even though I had seen pictures of the manuscript multiple times, the intimacy that came from viewing the real thing (even though it was behind a pane of glass) made the text come alive in a way that seeing it on a website could never produce. I believe that a text's aura really does draw it's essence from the originality of the text, and a scanned image displayed behind the barrier of the virtual database destroys that aura.

Hamlet's Soliloquy: A Review

I believe it's fair to say that I've had enough of Hamlet to last me a lifetime, or at least for the next year. So while I'd like to call this review short and say "They each have a different actor. Done" I hardly think it would do the versions justice. So let's take a look at exactly how these versions are different and why it matters.

Bronough's version (the first video) consists of him reciting the famous lines into a mirror. Throughout this version, we never see his profile straight on, but instead see it through the reflection of the mirror as though we were standing behind him. This focus on the mirror and his reflection emphasizes the conscience, or more precisely the subconscious turmoil going on in Hamlet's mind. The director of this version saw the inner conflict of "to be or not to be" and created a visual of that by utilizing the mirror image as the inner self.

Derek Jacobi (video 2) shows a closed off Hamlet. He enters the screen with his arms crossed over his chest and worriedly look behind him, as though someone could read his thoughts just by being in the room. When Jacobi finally begins Halmet's lines, he talks straight into the camera, addressing the audience as his inner self. On occasion, Jacobi turns away from the audience, as though he is turning away from his thoughts, unable to bear them. He does this when he says "Aye, there's the rub" and then goes to sit down, talking to the camera/audience as though discussing the problem with a friend that isn't there. In my opinion, this version shows Hamlet in the most unstable form, perhaps because he seems slightly crazy when he is talking to himself in this way (but that's just my view).

Kevin Kline's version (video 3) shows a more serious Hamlet, a somber and controlled version of a man who knows his fate but dreads it nonetheless. While he ponders his fate, he does so in a way that demonstrates a man who knows what he will decide, but can't bear the thought of the outcome. He speaks slowly and takes time to let each thought linger on the screen.

So what?

We can easily say that every time someone performs Hamlet, they do it differently. In fact, no two performances are ever exactly alike, even when performed by the same person on the same night. The visual performances are affected by the stage, props, actors, audiences, interruptions during a live performance, etc. So why does any of this matter? Well, in short, I can't say whether it does or doesn't. I believe that is left up to the people that care to create an answer for themselves. For me, I believe that it says a great deal about the effects on audience interpretation and the idea of an original text (and this is where things get tricky). The idea of "originality" which comes up again and again in this course is such a loose idea that it's nearly impossible to pin down. In class, we discussed the concepts that make something original, such as authorship, but whether or not something is original comes down to the questions "When does something go from being a thought to an idea? When does that idea take form? When does that first form receive attention?"

While I began this post as an analysis I believe it will end in a state of discomfort as I find myself struggling more and more to answer these questions in full.

What do you think?

Something Rotten in Denmark

In honor of studying Hamlet this week...

Editing the Text

The Original

“To Be Or Not To Be”: Spoken by Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 1
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

A Modern Translation



Transforming the platform: A journal rendition of the soliloquy

Dear Journal,

I’ve been thinking about suicide lately. Would it be better to face what life has dealt me, or to just end it all? I want to sleep and never wake up. I don’t want to feel this way anymore. I just want to dream my heartache away. Am I meant to experience all of these things? Does this happen to everyone, or just me? The heartache, the humility, the tension that only I feel…But I fear death. What happens after when the decision lasts forever? No one comes back from death. Am I just a coward to fear death? Am I too afraid to take action? I can’t look at Ophelia without thinking about what I’ve done. It’s not fair.

The reasoning behind the madness: An explanation

While reading Hamlet, I often feel like I can hear his voice in my head as a 15 year old boy complaining about his life. If the play was turned into a television show, I could easily picture Hamlet as a self-pitying teenager played by some up and coming CW star, spending countless hours writing in his journal about all of his problems (As a side note, I think Emily Dickinson would fit perfectly in this role as well, perhaps as his counterpart across the street). (While I didn't particularly edit the direct lines of Shakespeare's play) I decided to modernize and transfigure them into something completely different, a new work as Zumthor would say. By re-creating Hamlet's soliloquy, I tried to create the same angst and anxiety in a less formal context. I find that the poetic format sometimes takes away from the understanding of the text, and by showing Hamlet's speech through a journal entry I hope to reinforce the context of the words.

True Life: The Wife of Bath's Tale

BBC's adaptation of Chaucer's Wife of Bath

The question that we're truly battling with when asking whether this adaptation can still be considered part of Chaucer's tales is a question of originality. According to different theorists that I've already discussed (you can find them below in full detail) editions are mere stages of a work. If this is a case, then this show is most assuredly part of Chaucer's initial work; however, there is also the theory that each new edition is a brand new work altogether and would then render this adaptation of the film a new piece, a new TEXT. The questions are mind-boggling (and sometimes go around in an enormous circle) yet these are aspects that shape and control the way we see things. If this show wasn't labeled under the category of Chaucer then would we just watch it as any ordinary show? Think of it this way. Disney's The Lion King is a completely original film that many hold dear to their hearts. Wrong. The film is a rendition of Shakespeare's Hamlet made into a children's film. If this is the case, then did the audience go see this movie because of its relation to Hamlet? Continuing on, is the film then merely an edition of the original work, or is it a new work? I can't say that I have the answers to any of these questions, but to realize whether something is a part of something or a new work captures the attention of audiences worldwide.

Chaucer say what?

Editing: To prepare, set in order for publication (literary material which is wholly or in part the work of others) OED.

Editing: To organize thoughts and make words legible.

Dear Chaucer,

Your lines are beautiful. I love them, but most of the population many of my peers can't understand Old English. So please, don't take offense by what I'm about to do.

Sincerely,

Your Admirer

A. Hengwrt Manuscript (Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, Peniarth 392) of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales

Wife of Bath’s Prologue

597 And trewely / as myne hou{s}bondes tolde me
598 I hadde the be{s}te quonyam / myghte be
599 Myn a{s}cendent/ was Taur / and Mars ther Inne
600 Allas / allas / that euere loue was synne
601 I folwed ay / myn Inclinacioun
602 By vertu / of my con{s}tellacioun
603 That made me / I koude noght withdrawe
604 My chambre of Venus / from a good felawe
605 ¶What sholde I seye / but at the Monthes ende
606 This ioly clerk / Iankyn þt was so hende
607 Hath wedded me / with greet solempnytee
608 And to hym yaf I / al the lond and fee
609 That euere was me yeuen / ther before

For the modern populace:

Once, I had the best lady parts out there, no lie. I descended from Taurus and Mars, like a goddess. Bah! Love is a sin! I followed my heart, instead of my mind. I couldn’t stop myself. I slept with a "good" man, and what’s there to say. At the end of the month, Jankin begrudgingly married me. I ended up giving him all my money and my land.

Tweet Speak:

"Fell in love in a hopeless place" #nomoney #prego #KatyPerry

Ellesmere Manuscript (San Marino, Huntington Library, Ellesmere) of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales

Wife of Bath’s Prologue

Lines 607 forward:
And trewely as myne housbondes tolde me,
I hadde the beste quonyam myghte be.
For certes I am al Venerien
In feelynge and myn herte is Marcien.
Venus me yaf my lust, my likerousnesse
And Mars yaf me my sturdy hardynesse.
Myn ascendent was Taur and Mars therinne.
Allas allas that evere love was synne
I folwed ay myn inclinacioun
By vertu of my constellacioun
That made me I koude noght withdrawe
My chambre of Venus from a good felawe.
Yet have I Martes mark upon my face
And also in another privee place
For God so wys be my savacioun
I ne loved nevere by no discrecioun
But evere folwede myn appetit
Al were he short, or long, or blak, or whit
I took no kep, so that he liked me
How poore he was ne eek of what degree
What sholde I seye but at the monthes ende
This joly clerk Jankyn that was so hende
Hath wedded me with greet solempnytee
And to hym yaf I al the lond and fee
That evere was me yeven therbifoore.

Truly, as my husband said, I had the best form of all. Certainly, I was born of Venus. In my mind and in my heart, I'm descended from Mars and Venus, who gave me lust and fortitude. Ah, love was a sin. I followed my inclination, and as my horoscope predicted, I lusted after a good man; yet, I have the unluckiness of Mars written upon my face (as well as another private place). For by God as my witness, I never loved by discretion, but always followed my desires instead. Whether he was short, long, black, or white, I didn’t pay attention, as long as he liked me. His wealth or degree didn't matter. What can I say but at the end of the month that happy clerk, Jankin, who was so kind, married me with great disdain and I gave him all the land and money that I possessed.


So, what's the purpose of all this? Why edit? In scholarly fields, as well as non-scholarly fields such as blogs, social networking sites, Youtube, etc., editing plays a major role in the communication factor between two parties. The way a text is edited can greatly change the meaning of a text. It can help others better understand the author's intent or it can smooth out the discourse for modern audiences, such as the changes made above. When I read Chaucer's original work out loud to a friend he had a hard time understanding exactly what was being said. After reading the edited version (and the tweet) the text ceased to be merely words on a page to him, and suddenly contained meaning. As an editor, that is the goal. In academics, meaning can sometimes get lost in a sea of big words and complicated analogies. Bringing meaning back to the text is like translating a work into the vernacular.

Cerquiglini - Written authority

Voici Cerquiglini

In his article, Cerquiglini discusses the written text versus oral performance and the importance of one over the other. He mentions the development of the written language, particularly the vernacular, and its influence on rising societies, emphasizing that the "written word made progress that was decisive" and that there was "no going back" from that point on.

In the end, I believe he narrows it down to two key points:

1. No work is original

2. Written work is more authoritative than oral work

Personally, I agree more with Zumthor and less with Cerquiglini in the idea that I believe every work is original, but let's talk about Cerq's approach. If no work is original, then you could look at it this way....

Each work is merely a mirror of a work that came before it, with slight alterations.

For example:

Okay, so this is a more obvious example, but what about other works that we would consider classics, such as Great Expectations, Pride and Prejudice, Where the Red Fern Grows, or more recently Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Alice in Wonderland?

Do these texts have any originality to them? I would say yes. Absolutely. But what is originality? What gives something the authority to claim originality? And how does originality add to the value of a work?

Jumping off of the theme of authoritative texts, Cerq's claim that written texts are more authoritative than oral texts is also something that perplexes me. While I understand the idea of something being "written in stone" as the expression goes, as being something complete, maybe even final, I have to wonder if written texts really do hold more power over spoken texts. I think that auditory texts contain an element of textness that written works lack. There's something intimate about hearing a pause as opposed to noting a comma. I think that the two are equal in regards to authority.

In fact, I think that the highest authority comes when both the written and the spoken come together.