Bob, that's just the point, though: authors write on sheets of paper,
not in books: the selecting out of "final" copy, allegedly representing
authorial
intention but often also showing significant intervention by editors,
typesetters, and others, and the binding of these sheets into a certain
order in book form, is
already a translation from the scene of composition to the scene of publication.
The computer allows you to more fully and more accurately represent both scenes,
and in the case of the scene of composition, there is no comparison between
book and electronic versions if you want a full and accurate representation.
>having access to certain documents, songs, literarty works,
>etc. that might have influenced the author, but I don't
>think that the absence of such detracts from the author's
>individual work. Clearly it is the author's job to convey
>his/her message through the available medium. If a (and
>this is debateable) "better" medium comes along later, who
>is to say that the author might have expressed the message
>any more clearly simply because of new technology?
>
I think this is missing the point: remember, these readings are talking
about scholarly treatment of literary works, and in arguing for hypermedia
as superior to print for the representation, annotation, and navigation of
those works, these readings are not saying that hypermedia are superior to
print for the purpose of original literary composition: they might be, but
that would indeed depend on the intentions and techniques of the author.
John Unsworth / Director, IATH / Dept. of English
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/