getmygoat

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about The Text (like I do, since that’s kind of my life’s work). This evening’s installment of Randi’s Incoherent Intellectual Thought regards the history of the text. The specific text we were discussing in class was James Joyce’s Ulysses, whose printing history is quite complex. As we discussed the many incarnations of the epic anti-novel, I began thinking of what makes a text “right” or “wrong”.

In the case of Ulysses, there are specific errors written into the text to create complex inside jokes. So grammatical correctness and acceptable spelling really don’t have anything to do with the proper text in this case. I suppose we can start with asking “What does Joyce want?” Authorial intent is notoriously dangerous territory in academia, and it is difficult to decide which manuscript of Joyce’s (or which edited typescript) is closest to what he wants.

The multiple printings of Ulysses involve careful scrutiny of available resources - many people have looked at Joyce’s manuscripts, typescripts, and annotations in order to decide exactly which version of the book the canon accepts. Our class discussion delved into cover art, which one might consider extraneous to the book’s content, but was, according to my professor, a very important aspect of publishing for Joyce. He chose a specific shade of blue-green that matches the color of the Aegean Sea in order to invoke thoughts of Greece and epics before even cracking the cover. Of all the editions we studied in class that day, NONE of them were blue.

But this isn’t supposed to be a record of how various publishing houses have botched the publishing of Ulysses. Ulysses is just one example, for me, of a complicated textual history, and it got me thinking of the following things:

• Even though each new edition is further away from the author, does that make each new text less legitimate? Can’t it be that each edition learns from the previous ones?

• Does publishing multiple editions corrupt the text? Can all texts be corrupted? What about texts, like Ulysses with purposeful errors which are corrupt by nature?

• Do texts become less stable throughout their textual history, and, if so, is this instability a bad thing?

• Back to Ulysses - Would Joyce mind the restructuring of his anti-structuralist text? Aren’t fluidity and instability crucial to reading Ulysses?

These are the types of things I think about at the end of the day, and I would like some input from my fellow readers. I am struggling with this need to find the legitimate text while I find that there are legitimate elements (at least) to all texts. Any thoughts?

Last week in class we were discussing literature (obviously), specifically which books and authors are worthwhile and who makes those decisions.  One of my classmates said that we can’t just open up the canon because trashy popular book will make their way in.  I’ve been thinking about this statement ever since, and I disagree.  I think that the canon is self-regulatory.

When I read Twilight (the book she used as an example of books we don’t want in the canon), it entertains me, but I don’t read much into it.  When I read Watchmen, however, I see many levels of analysis (and I’m sure I miss some as well).  Neither book is in the canon of academic literature, but I believe there is a place for graphic novels, especially ones like Watchmen which are full of literary and political commentary while romantic stories generally do not lend themselves to academic scrutiny.

I think it is elitist to tell people what types of books are worth reading.  I also believe that within a particular genre, some books are better than others.  Just because a book is popular or a best seller does not necessarily mean that it would suddenly become a candidate for scholarly work.  I also think that we should consider the intended audience - juvenile books are less likely to become topics of academic papers than books written for adults.

But I wonder if my ideas here are too Utopian.   Do I have too much faith in today’s readers?  I want to believe that what I say is true, and perhaps English classes will cease to be mostly about Dead White Guys.  I want to see more work on unusual, interesting, and timely books.