When it comes to using the words "text" and "object," I tend to think in
terms that Barbara's mentor Tom Tanselle offers: that is, a text is
words or wording, and hence essentially conceptual; a book or document
is an object on which a version of the text is inscribed. Generally,
speaking texts are not objects; they are separate from the material
documents upon which they appear, or even the ink or medium in which
they are inscribed or printed. At least that is a good place to start.
And when we look at texts in revision, or what I call revision texts, we
have an interesting condition that illustrates this conceptual notion of
text (v. material books) and which might also be worth discussing. In
some recent articles and in my forthcoming book, Melville Unfolding, I
talk about the "invisible text of revision." I also alluded to this at
STS last week. When a writer revises on the page, s/he composes,
strikes out words, inserts words, and re-composes. What is printed
finally is the last event in the revision process and that is what is
visible to us. What is invisible to us is the revision text, which may
not be visible even on the manuscript page.
The example I used last week was in Melville's Typee MS. At one point
in the "text" concerning sacrificial offerings we find
"the relics of some blo [strikeout blo] recent sacrifice."
This phrase reaches print as
"the relics of some recent sacrifice."
But in reality (such as it is), HM first wrote "blo" with the idea of
writing "bloody sacrifice" OR "bloody recent sacrifice"
He changed his mind mid-bloody, crossed out "blo" and then went on to
finish his new image
"recent sacrifice"
I would argue that "bloody sacrifice" is a "text" that existed as a
wording in HM's mind, much like Tanselle's notion of "text" as a
conceptual not material thing. It is an invisible text of revision in
my parlance, a wording not fully transcribed but one that clearly
existed conceptually. And these kinds of "text" appear throughout any
rough draft manuscript.
So these are texts that only an editor can make visible or material by
writing them out in book objects for readers who are interested in
reading a work in revision.
So is this "invisible" thing a text, or an object, or a cultural object?
I tend to think it is the first and last of these three. It is
cultural in the sense that any moment of revision may triggered by the
writer interacting with a culture. When HM decides in a split second
not to write "bloody," he may be reacting to a projected audience need
or restriction; he is bending as well to his own rhetorical strategy.
And once you have evidence of a reader response imbedded in an authorial
moment, it seems to me you have a culture to contend with.
Book history can deal with such textual cultural matters as revision.
Revision is an authorial but also a cultural process, just like other
book related processes, like production and consumption, which, as
process, are inherently "invisible."
yrs,
John Bryant
___________
John Bryant, English Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549
>>> "Dan O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> 03/22/07 3:56 PM >>>
On Thu, 2007-22-03 at 16:57 +0000, Barbara Bordalejo wrote:
> The problem with "texts as cultural objects" is that it is very
> vague, so much so that I feel I have to ask you what exactly do you
> mean by it.
Well I don't mean anything exact, because I don't think it is exactly
definable: like porn, Book History is something you know when you see
it. I guess the closest I'd come to a exclusive definition is: study of
transmission, composition, and reception of texts where the primary
focus is on how these aspects of textual activity were or can be
understood historically, sociologically, or anthropologically.
> I accept, however, that the definition implied a clear delimitation.
> That is why I liked it. Vague terms lead to confusion and to the
> danger of creating pseudo-disciplines.
I'm not sure that's really the case: in fact, I'd argue that "What is
Book History" is a useful question only if it is being used
inclusively--i.e. to discover what it is we do that makes us think we
are doing book history--rather than exclusively--i.e. to discover what
it is the others are doing that puts them on the outside. Otherwise you
end up with those barren debates we used to have in classics class about
whether something was a dative of advantage or reference. These terms
are useful when considering inclusively all the various things a dative
can do; but less useful when you try rule exclusively whether a
particular example belong in one or the other category. I don't think
there is necessarily a sharp line that says "this is book history and
this is not."
> Now, what is that common end we are working towards? I would like to
> be aware, so I can do my part. ;-)
The common goal is the study of texts as cultural objects. QED. ;)
>
>
> BB
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2007, at 16:29, Dan O'Donnell wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not having been at the roundtable, I can't comment directly--but it
> > seems to me the non-material definition is unfortunately limiting. I
> > prefer the study of texts as cultural objects. It seems to me that
the
> > great power of Book History in the last fifteen years or so has
> > been the
> > way it managed to overcome aspects of the culture wars from the
> > 1990s by
> > turning the discussion among philologists, textual scholars, and
less
> > materially oriented theorists and critics to a less zero sum
argument
> > than it once had been: now we are at least arguably working towards
a
> > common end.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
> > Chair, Text Encoding Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org/>
> > Director, Digital Medievalist Project <http://
> > www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
> > Associate Professor and Chair of English
> > University of Lethbridge
> > Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
> > Vox: +1 403 329 2378
> > Fax: +1 403 382-7191
> > Homepage: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
> >
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org/>
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
<http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
Associate Professor and Chair of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox: +1 403 329 2378
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
Homepage: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
|
