Why Do Authors Produce Textual Variation on Purpose? Or, Why Publish a Text That Is Still Unfolding?
Fiche du document
12 mai 2017
- doi: 10.4000/variants.322
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1573-3084
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1879-6095
All rights reserved , info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Mots-clés
genetic criticism manuscripts drafts revision variant variorum edition English literature Eliot (T. S.) James (Henry) Plath (Sylvia) Shakespeare (William)Sujets proches
Work, Method of Industry (Psychology) Method of work Eyesight Seeing Sight Stage Dramatics Histrionics Theatre Professional theater Service of process Service of papers Abuse of process Process Codices Produce Agricultural products Agricultural commodities Entail--Law and legislation Estate tail Limitations (Law) Stage Drama, Modern Plays Drama--Philosophy Bank drafts Group discussion Literary critics Appraisal of books Evaluation of literature Literary criticism Books--Appraisal Criticism--Technique Literature--Evaluation Writers Stage HistrionicsCiter ce document
Hannah Sullivan, « Why Do Authors Produce Textual Variation on Purpose? Or, Why Publish a Text That Is Still Unfolding? », Variants, ID : 10.4000/variants.322
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Post-publication revision causes problems for both an Anglo-American editorial tradition and genetic critics. Discussion of variance in Shakespeare, Henry James, T. S. Eliot, and Sylvia Plath shows that publication is only as much of an event as an author makes it. It need not entail a neat breach between genesis and transmission. Using Wittgenstein’s notion of “seeing as”, I propose that “in process” (still being composed) and “finished” (ready for transmission) are aspects of textual apprehension rather than descriptions of any individual documentary stage. Publishing a genetic dossier fixes its contour, just as post-publication revision unfixes a circulating work.