>In setting up archives and other hypertext forms of books, plays, poems,
>critiism, he wants them to be expanable. He feels that hyperEditing
>does not require a central text for oraginzing the hypertext of documents
>This begs two questions: if
>some logic is given to a period/artist/genre when arranging it (and that
>someone must make this judgement), and that someone or some org.must
>maintain the site/archive. Who is chosen for such roles and how can they
>do this job without basis'?
No one is chosen: one chooses oneself. It is a fact worth noting that
there is no coordinated, centralized authority that delegates the work of
creating electronic editions, any more than there is for print editions.
People nominate themselves, as it were, and are elected, or not, based on
the value
others think they have (or have not) created in the edition that results: poor
editions are quickly forgotten, good ones last. As for the "central text,"
what McGann is talking about is a reference text--a version of the text
judged to be the "master" text, and on the basis of which all other texts of
that work are coordinated. The print medium makes the selection of such a
text practically necessary, since you will print one version and reference
all variants and notes to that one version. The electronic edition, though,
allows you to present variant texts on equal footing. This is a major point
in editorial theory, as well as a practical issue in designing electronic
editions (since you still have to have some point of reference for collation
of variant texts); nonetheless, it does not imply that there is no
organizing principle, only that the organizing principle is not necessarily
the promotion of a single text to superior, authoritative status.
>McGann's Rationale is grounded in the fact that the character of literary
>works goes beyond the capablites of the book. There are certain
>non-textual aspects in works which can't be conveyed through text alone.
>Doesn;t it them follow that he would argue against word processing? It
>seems the author is also an artist, and that the confines of text-only
>functions handicap their work. What i'm saying is that by taking the
>human element of writing/reactioning/editing/etc and fighting that word
>processors should only be used, it seems to limit the artistic nature
>of past writers (etc) that which he is trying to illuminate.
Here I think what McGann is suggesting is that the electronic medium is
better suited to representing the many layers and stages of textual
composition than is the book--and I agree. This doesn't mean, though, that
a word-processor (or pen and paper) are bad ways of producing one layer or
stage of that composition. Sure, hypermedia may offer authors a richer
palette for invention, but that's a different issue.
>In the second para. McGann says: "It is clear to anyone who has looked
>carefully at our postmodern condition that no real resistance to such
>developments(information technologies) is possible, even if it were
>desirable." Why doesn't our pm
>condition illicit no resistance (or what about it)?
>
I believe he's suggesting that technology now permeates our culture more or
less irresistably. I'd agree, though I'm not sure that I'd go so far as
saying that this technology has a nature, a goal, or a destiny (in short, a
teleology) hard-wired into it.
John Unsworth / Director, IATH / Dept. of English
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/