Some serious considerations. Seriously.
The rationale for this project comes in part from my experience at the Shakespeare Association of America this past April (2010). My seminar was entitled “New Variations in Texts and Editing,” and our productive discussion raised issues of an editor’s agency and accountability when selecting and editing a text, as well as new questions regarding the role of technology in aiding and hindering editors. We have had a long-running tug of war between editors and “uneditors”—the former group stands by the fact that texts need to be mediated in order for the reader’s experience to be enhanced, and it’s the editor’s responsibility to choose the appropriate edition that best reflects an author’s original intent (which, in itself sounds absurdly passé, but more on that later!); the latter group argues that the best sort of editing is the one that performs an invisibility act of sorts, and allows the text to speak for itself and reveal to readers all of its confusing and illuminating inconsistencies. The problem with unediting, of course, is that most readers who encounter early texts are not scholars, and they may not be in tune with what’s a deliberate mistake and what’s intentional, nor will their reading and comprehension be facilitated by a text that lacks a modern perspective with notes and commentaries. It surprised me, too, that the foundational text for editors is still W. W. Greg’s “Rationale of Copy-Text,” which was published in 1950!
One of the questions asked in our seminar was “should we go digital,” which was then nuanced to the shocking “have we been digital.” The suggestion was that just because we have been placing text online does not mean that we have been making use of the tools the digital world has to offer. For instance, one the most basic of levels, searching and researching can be enabled to amazing levels when you have access to tagging and other digital codes. Further, there is linking, cross-referencing, and collating, all of which would enhance texts in ways that printed books simply can’t achieve, due to time, space, and monetary constrictions. Although I think that the historical and social background is an important aspect of understanding any piece of literature, I am uncomfortable with a model that still privileges authorial (with a capital A?) “genius” (an 18th century invention!) as the central reason for choosing copy-text.
This is where my mind is as I work on this tristrampedia. It seems to me that Sterne was yearning for deconstruction, and that all his authorial interventions were only so that us, readers, could be even freer to (mis)read his text in many different levels. And, if that’s not the case, I’m sure he’d gladly forgive me for saying: who cares?
One of the reasons I think this text is so hard to read and to finish (every time I mention this project to someone they tend to be either on the “oh, I’ve always meant to read that” camp or in the “I’ve never managed to finish reading that” camp) is that it defies traditional readership and dances all over any pretence to linearity. And so, in challenging every single traditional reading and teaching model, I will dare to suggest a choose-your-adventure model for reading Shandy. Want to read the story of Uncle Toby and nothing else? There’s a way. Want to read looking for visual and spacial innovations? Go ahead. Want to focus on nothing but Walter Shandy? Do it! More interested in following the narrator’s own story? Well… that may lead you to read the book cover to cover (just remember to stop before the baby is unborn, or you’ll have to go back to back to the start, pass Go and not even collect $200).
But here is my adventure, which may also be yours: a neither here nor there, quite serf-serving reading for Stene/Shandy’s investment in the writing, production and development of printed books. I hope that this site will be a helpful guide for those interested in those aspects of the book but, even more, an inspiring model for other selective readings. And, for such, the instructor inside me has provided you with a list of other exciting “side readings” I’d like to pursue but, even more, would LOVE to see someone else pursue. See you on the other side!
One of the questions asked in our seminar was “should we go digital,” which was then nuanced to the shocking “have we been digital.” The suggestion was that just because we have been placing text online does not mean that we have been making use of the tools the digital world has to offer. For instance, one the most basic of levels, searching and researching can be enabled to amazing levels when you have access to tagging and other digital codes. Further, there is linking, cross-referencing, and collating, all of which would enhance texts in ways that printed books simply can’t achieve, due to time, space, and monetary constrictions. Although I think that the historical and social background is an important aspect of understanding any piece of literature, I am uncomfortable with a model that still privileges authorial (with a capital A?) “genius” (an 18th century invention!) as the central reason for choosing copy-text.
This is where my mind is as I work on this tristrampedia. It seems to me that Sterne was yearning for deconstruction, and that all his authorial interventions were only so that us, readers, could be even freer to (mis)read his text in many different levels. And, if that’s not the case, I’m sure he’d gladly forgive me for saying: who cares?
One of the reasons I think this text is so hard to read and to finish (every time I mention this project to someone they tend to be either on the “oh, I’ve always meant to read that” camp or in the “I’ve never managed to finish reading that” camp) is that it defies traditional readership and dances all over any pretence to linearity. And so, in challenging every single traditional reading and teaching model, I will dare to suggest a choose-your-adventure model for reading Shandy. Want to read the story of Uncle Toby and nothing else? There’s a way. Want to read looking for visual and spacial innovations? Go ahead. Want to focus on nothing but Walter Shandy? Do it! More interested in following the narrator’s own story? Well… that may lead you to read the book cover to cover (just remember to stop before the baby is unborn, or you’ll have to go back to back to the start, pass Go and not even collect $200).
But here is my adventure, which may also be yours: a neither here nor there, quite serf-serving reading for Stene/Shandy’s investment in the writing, production and development of printed books. I hope that this site will be a helpful guide for those interested in those aspects of the book but, even more, an inspiring model for other selective readings. And, for such, the instructor inside me has provided you with a list of other exciting “side readings” I’d like to pursue but, even more, would LOVE to see someone else pursue. See you on the other side!
