McGann, Jerome. "The Rationale of Hypertext." (1995) ADHO
McGann's article, which from beginning from the title (clearly allusive to Greg's famous essay) discloses its ambition of establishing itself as a seminal work in a brand-new field, tackles the unavoidable notion that in today's increasingly computerized academia, scholars must "learn to use a new set of scholarly tools".
Why does the electronic medium offer boundless possibility to the critical editing of texts? Firstly, because to "deploy a book form to study another book form" presents a myriad of problems, including the necessity of apparati, notes, shorthand reference forms, bibliographies, and so forth. In short, "no single book or manageable set of books can incorporate for analysis all of the relevant documents". Furthermore, computerization allows for easy access to material not reproduceable in book form: the declamation of a poem, the performance of a play, In a virtual space, a book's "semantic and visual features", together with any amount of secondary literature, "can be made simultaneously present to each other". Many of the advantages, like not having to travel thousands of miles, or even to the nearest well-equipped library or video-store, are self-evident.
In the following section, McGann defines the concepts of hyperediting and hypermedia programs, which do not necesseraly entail the use of hypertext (nevertheless preferable, since it enables to quickly move through large masses of documents in complex ways), but require that "they have the power to include audial and/or visual documents in the system".
Next, the author argues for the "necessity of hypermedia" through a series of examples.
a)Robert Burns' ballads such as "Tam Glen" were written to existing popular melodies and composed with a focus on orality rather than textuality: they were intended to be sung and heard more than to be read. Why, therefore, would anyone prefer a book-form critical edition of Burns's complete works "to an equivalent edition based primarily on audial texts?"
b) The second example involves Blake, whose use of visual materials is so crucial to the whole of his literary corpus that no book form could possibly provide an adequate edition of his work. But something tells me we will have the chance to examine Blake's case more thoroughly in weeks to come.
c) McGann also mention the handycraft character of many Emily Dickinson's poems, who, for example, by attaching a postage stamp to the sheet of paper she would then write on, was creating "a kind of gravitational field for her writing".
d) Here the author mentions the case of pictury-poetry, a meteor-like genre that rose to prominence in the early 19th century, and the example of Laetitia Landon's work, impossible to properly approach without the incorporation of much visual material.
e) McGann mentions the latest critical edition of Wordsworth's Prelude, and the fact that this massive scholarly endeavor nevertheless failed, mostly for practical reasons, to include a critical edition of the "five book" version of the work. Similar problems could be easily avoiding with a hypermedia-based approach.
Next, the author discusses the implementation of his ideas in his own Rossetti Archive, together with the ulterior benefits that were revealed in the process of creating it (like the beauty of being able to change, revise, add and expand without the need for publishing a new book) and the arisal of new problems that traditional book-form editing did not present (like "how to incorporate digitized images into the computational field").
In the coda, McGann argues that HyperEditing requires a well-planned structure and must be organized according to logical principles, but like a library (the structure it most resembles), it is intended for "indefinite expansion". Therefore, in the author's view there is no need for a "central text" around which to organize the system, contrary to what many other theorists advocated at the time (and perhaps still now).
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Final Intention?
Regarding authorial intention, I cannot accept the claim that final intention should be the primary basis of a copy-text. Without delving into Gadamer's hermeneutics or Derridian deconstruction (in doing so I would run the risk of corrupting, rather than corroborating, McGann's arguments), I will attempt to substantiate my view with simplistic historical data. Countless of the world's greatest authors have burned or otherwise destroyed their work, some soon after its composition and others many decades afterwards, towards the end of their life. I have mentioned in class the example of Tasso, who for the last decades of his life disowned the Gerusalemme Liberata-- now, and for the past 4 centuries, unanimously regarded as one the great masterpieces of all time-- and made every effort to halt its circulation and destroy every existing copy of it. There are many more examples, from Boccaccio being dissuaded by Petrarch from distroying all his manuscripts (his shabby house WAS very cold...) to Botticelli burning his paintings in Savonarola's bonfire, to Gogol doing the same with all his opus (we will never know if volume two of The Dead Souls was even greater than the first part, and we only have the first part through the deceit of his friend). All the cases listed above were triggered by the onset of religious conversion/breakthrough, an ardent spiritual fanatism that today's scholars and psychologists link to mental illness. Would advocates of "final intention" say that it doesn't count if the authors discover God or if they're diagnosed with schizophrenia? Does not all art involve a deeply spiritual process? And do not all great artists possess minds that are everything but "normal"? The "New Critics" (I forget which) state that "the work is not the property of the author", and Maurice Blanchot, in The Space of Literature, argues that a poet (quite Orphically...) "loses" the work in the moment he sets it on paper: "from the moment he writes it, it becomes unreadable to him". To conclude, I would like to touch upon an artist that has made the issues we will tackle in this week's class the very center of his own art: the 20th century (meta)sculptor Alberto Giacometti, who operated in Paris from th 30s to the 50s, classified alternatively as existentialist, surrealist, or formalist, but always eluding easy categorization. His elongated, fleshless, and ultra-emaciated figures usually began as more voluminous pieces (often almost realistic), but he picked away at them until they assumed their characteristic aspect. In fact, he would show them at exhibitions, then go back to them and thin them out further. Sometimes, a same piece (but not the same work, right?) would appear in a show 10 years later weighing half the size. However Giacometti, would keep returning even to his most accoladed sculptures, often working until they crumbled to the ground and were swept away by the maid that tended to his studio. "The work," he stated, "is not finished until there it is completely destroyed, until there is absolutely nothing".
http://www.electroasylum.com/giacometti/
http://mediaplayer.archives.tsr.ch/personnalite-giacometti/3.wmv
(a video of the artist talking about his "poetics", in French, with images of his sculptures)
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/giacometti.html
(a decent article in English, with links to some images)
http://www.electroasylum.com/giacometti/
http://mediaplayer.archives.tsr.ch/personnalite-giacometti/3.wmv
(a video of the artist talking about his "poetics", in French, with images of his sculptures)
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/giacometti.html
(a decent article in English, with links to some images)
Tanselle's Rationale
Tanselle, Thomas. A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989; second edition, 1992.
MAIN POINTS:
Chapter 1
The first chapter/lecture is yet another overview of what textual criticism is/does, etc:
- the uniqueness of literature compared to static forms of art. in painting and sculpture, art and artifact mostly coincide: do we not need to consider the "corporeal reality of literary works"?
-distinction between text and work. The work is unattainable (let us think of a platonic idea); any text, even the original manuscript, is a reproduction of the work.
-as editors, the key issue is "whether historical reconstruction or current effectiveness should take precedence, when the two don't seem to coincide".
Chapter 2
No text is ever definitive: "the world of documents is a world of imperfection."
-there are infinite potential versions in the author's mind even before he starts writing.
-"every artifact displays the residue of an unequal cotest: the effort of a human being to transcend the human" (64)
-There is an "inherent uncertainty" about all works using words as medium, since any document is the result of countless contingencies, and its preservation the result of countless more.
-stress on the necessity of "creative and informed judgement" on the part of the editor/critic.
-Textual criticism must aim to bring to the surface, rather than to conceal, the fluctuating dynamics (the history of its transmission and transcription)which lye beneath the staticity of any document:
"even though a document [...] possesses this claming and nourishing stasis, we must also recognize [...] that it reflects the pulsing and tortuous underside of stasis. [...] the text of documents preserve a partial record of that struggle, and the effort to make this record [..] known is a noble service."
Chapter 3
-textual criticism involves "the search for past intentions in all their rich complexity"
- the impossibility to escape authorial intention (T. antagonizes the concept of "shared" authorship)
-" there is still a single mind that provided the impetus for each work"
-authorial intention (the work that took shape in his mind) vs. authorial action (what he actually wrote)
-accept some revisions but not others?
-initial intention vs. final intention, and all the points in between (but there is also the last document they left, without regarding it as finished. i. e Wolfe or Hemingway)
- list of factors that influence an editor's decisions
I have found a paper which briefly sketches the recent developments in bibliographical studies, and includes a comparative evaluation of Tanselle's and McGann's work:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1387/is_3_52/ai_n6080405/pg_1
Observation: At pages 22-24, the author likens textual reproductions of literary works to musical scores (which like any text may be faulty or subject to textual criticism), and compares a reader to an orchestra conductor, since while reading (whether silently or aloud) he/she is "performing" the work according to his/her own understanding of it, sensibility, voice pitch, etc. This raised another question in my mind: since practically all works of literature are transcribed without any sort of guidelines as to how they should be read/performed, what "version" of the text does the work actually resemble? This is most problematic regarding prose: for example, in a 10-line period of Goethe's Werther, which secondary clause should be read with more emphasis and which with less, which should be read faster and which slower, etc. In poetry, at least for as long as it adhered to conventional forms, we do have a set of practical guidelines: metrics, rhythm, rhyme, line breaks, enjambements, divisions in stanzas, allitterations--nearly every figure of speach can be taken as an instruction for the phonic performance of the text. Yet there must be a difference between the way "shall I compare thee" sounds when read by me and when Shakespeare recited it for his friends. And was there not a difference between the way it must have sounded in WIllie's mind when he penned it and how it sounded, to his audience and even to him, when he spoke it aloud? (I know that is certainly the case for my own poems, which every now and then, to my utter disgust, I dare to read aloud... to myself). We may hear an audio recording of Robert Frost reading "Mending Wall", so must we assume THAT is the closest approximation to the actual, ineffable WORK? Would it not sound different even if Frost himself had recorded it 20 years later? Is, therefore, every act of "performing" a text a process of emendation? I don't know if these observations are cogent or interesting. But I do know that they have helped me understand, beyond the elusive and intuitive level, that whenever we read, we truly do engage in an act of textual criticism. thoughts/comments?
MAIN POINTS:
Chapter 1
The first chapter/lecture is yet another overview of what textual criticism is/does, etc:
- the uniqueness of literature compared to static forms of art. in painting and sculpture, art and artifact mostly coincide: do we not need to consider the "corporeal reality of literary works"?
-distinction between text and work. The work is unattainable (let us think of a platonic idea); any text, even the original manuscript, is a reproduction of the work.
-as editors, the key issue is "whether historical reconstruction or current effectiveness should take precedence, when the two don't seem to coincide".
Chapter 2
No text is ever definitive: "the world of documents is a world of imperfection."
-there are infinite potential versions in the author's mind even before he starts writing.
-"every artifact displays the residue of an unequal cotest: the effort of a human being to transcend the human" (64)
-There is an "inherent uncertainty" about all works using words as medium, since any document is the result of countless contingencies, and its preservation the result of countless more.
-stress on the necessity of "creative and informed judgement" on the part of the editor/critic.
-Textual criticism must aim to bring to the surface, rather than to conceal, the fluctuating dynamics (the history of its transmission and transcription)which lye beneath the staticity of any document:
"even though a document [...] possesses this claming and nourishing stasis, we must also recognize [...] that it reflects the pulsing and tortuous underside of stasis. [...] the text of documents preserve a partial record of that struggle, and the effort to make this record [..] known is a noble service."
Chapter 3
-textual criticism involves "the search for past intentions in all their rich complexity"
- the impossibility to escape authorial intention (T. antagonizes the concept of "shared" authorship)
-" there is still a single mind that provided the impetus for each work"
-authorial intention (the work that took shape in his mind) vs. authorial action (what he actually wrote)
-accept some revisions but not others?
-initial intention vs. final intention, and all the points in between (but there is also the last document they left, without regarding it as finished. i. e Wolfe or Hemingway)
- list of factors that influence an editor's decisions
I have found a paper which briefly sketches the recent developments in bibliographical studies, and includes a comparative evaluation of Tanselle's and McGann's work:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1387/is_3_52/ai_n6080405/pg_1
Observation: At pages 22-24, the author likens textual reproductions of literary works to musical scores (which like any text may be faulty or subject to textual criticism), and compares a reader to an orchestra conductor, since while reading (whether silently or aloud) he/she is "performing" the work according to his/her own understanding of it, sensibility, voice pitch, etc. This raised another question in my mind: since practically all works of literature are transcribed without any sort of guidelines as to how they should be read/performed, what "version" of the text does the work actually resemble? This is most problematic regarding prose: for example, in a 10-line period of Goethe's Werther, which secondary clause should be read with more emphasis and which with less, which should be read faster and which slower, etc. In poetry, at least for as long as it adhered to conventional forms, we do have a set of practical guidelines: metrics, rhythm, rhyme, line breaks, enjambements, divisions in stanzas, allitterations--nearly every figure of speach can be taken as an instruction for the phonic performance of the text. Yet there must be a difference between the way "shall I compare thee" sounds when read by me and when Shakespeare recited it for his friends. And was there not a difference between the way it must have sounded in WIllie's mind when he penned it and how it sounded, to his audience and even to him, when he spoke it aloud? (I know that is certainly the case for my own poems, which every now and then, to my utter disgust, I dare to read aloud... to myself). We may hear an audio recording of Robert Frost reading "Mending Wall", so must we assume THAT is the closest approximation to the actual, ineffable WORK? Would it not sound different even if Frost himself had recorded it 20 years later? Is, therefore, every act of "performing" a text a process of emendation? I don't know if these observations are cogent or interesting. But I do know that they have helped me understand, beyond the elusive and intuitive level, that whenever we read, we truly do engage in an act of textual criticism. thoughts/comments?
Monday, January 21, 2008
WORKS IN TRANSLATION
Again I'd like to bring in a couple of examples from my own field of specialization, and pose this question: is there a generally accepted approach for compiling a critical edition of a work in translation?
for major and universally studied authors, like Dante and Boccaccio, this would seem to be an important matter. Yet, from my own experience, there seems to be a great deal of indefiniteness regarding how to go about this. For example:
Dante's De Vulgari Eloquentia is considered the first Italian work of linguistics, and the first such work ever to be written by a poet. It is an unfinished Latin treatise in defense of the "vulgar" language (which would eventually come to be known as "Italian"), and while it is written in (Dante's medieval) Latin, it is widely regarded (presumably because of its author) as part of the Italian literary canon. The commonly recognized critical edition of this work is the one published in 1968 by Pier Vincenzo Mengaldo. For the English-speaking public, the work of reference is Steven Botterill's 1996 edition, which draws exclusively on Mengaldo's edition. But while Mengaldo draws from several manuscripts after a decades-long process of researching and studying the DVE's manuscript tradition, Botterill only considers the Latin text established by Mengaldo (and, from what I can tell, his Italian translation!). Is this acceptable?
Another interesting case is that of Dante's Rime, the posthumous collection of lyrics which were never included in an "official" work (like the Convivio, the Fiore, or the Vita Nuova), and never divulged together, as one work, by the author (unlike, for example, Petrarch's Canzoniere). For most of the 20th century, the Rime circulated in several editions, which differed from one another but only marginally (most accepted the ordering of the poems which had established itself throughout the centuries, and included as an appendix the "rime dubbie", those of uncertain attribution). A couple of years ago, leading dantist Domenico De Robertis published the crowning work of his long career, a new critical edition of the Rime which radically subverts the previously established order of the poems, definitively attributes to Dante several of the "rime dubbie" while ousting others which had long been attributed to him, and operates many changes in the accepted spelling. De Robertis' latest edition almost instantly established itself as the work of reference among Dante scholars. However, a non-Italian-speaking reader, as of now, has no access to it, as neither the whole work nor the 300-page introduction have been translated into English (nor, as far as I know, in any other language).... Furthermore, is it possible to simply "translate" a critical edition of a work? Wouldn't anyone embarking in such a task (you'd assume he/she would also be an authority in the field) inevitably come across certain things he/she wouldn't agree with? Can you have a critical edition of a critical edition? (perhaps it would be useful, but poetry itself is so unappealing to publishers, because of its extremely low mass appeal and profitability...)
for major and universally studied authors, like Dante and Boccaccio, this would seem to be an important matter. Yet, from my own experience, there seems to be a great deal of indefiniteness regarding how to go about this. For example:
Dante's De Vulgari Eloquentia is considered the first Italian work of linguistics, and the first such work ever to be written by a poet. It is an unfinished Latin treatise in defense of the "vulgar" language (which would eventually come to be known as "Italian"), and while it is written in (Dante's medieval) Latin, it is widely regarded (presumably because of its author) as part of the Italian literary canon. The commonly recognized critical edition of this work is the one published in 1968 by Pier Vincenzo Mengaldo. For the English-speaking public, the work of reference is Steven Botterill's 1996 edition, which draws exclusively on Mengaldo's edition. But while Mengaldo draws from several manuscripts after a decades-long process of researching and studying the DVE's manuscript tradition, Botterill only considers the Latin text established by Mengaldo (and, from what I can tell, his Italian translation!). Is this acceptable?
Another interesting case is that of Dante's Rime, the posthumous collection of lyrics which were never included in an "official" work (like the Convivio, the Fiore, or the Vita Nuova), and never divulged together, as one work, by the author (unlike, for example, Petrarch's Canzoniere). For most of the 20th century, the Rime circulated in several editions, which differed from one another but only marginally (most accepted the ordering of the poems which had established itself throughout the centuries, and included as an appendix the "rime dubbie", those of uncertain attribution). A couple of years ago, leading dantist Domenico De Robertis published the crowning work of his long career, a new critical edition of the Rime which radically subverts the previously established order of the poems, definitively attributes to Dante several of the "rime dubbie" while ousting others which had long been attributed to him, and operates many changes in the accepted spelling. De Robertis' latest edition almost instantly established itself as the work of reference among Dante scholars. However, a non-Italian-speaking reader, as of now, has no access to it, as neither the whole work nor the 300-page introduction have been translated into English (nor, as far as I know, in any other language).... Furthermore, is it possible to simply "translate" a critical edition of a work? Wouldn't anyone embarking in such a task (you'd assume he/she would also be an authority in the field) inevitably come across certain things he/she wouldn't agree with? Can you have a critical edition of a critical edition? (perhaps it would be useful, but poetry itself is so unappealing to publishers, because of its extremely low mass appeal and profitability...)
Greg's "The Rationale of Copy-Text" (1951)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/bsuva/sb/ (vol. 3, pgg 19-36)
As I understand, this is one of the seminal essays in all 20th century textual criticism, as is demonstrated by the introduction of so many ideas and terms that would establish themselves as mainstays in the scholarly debates and in the technical jargon.
ACCIDENTALS AND SUBSTANTIVES: "we need to draw a distinction between the significant, or as I shall call them 'substantive', readings of the text, those namely that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression, and others, such in general as spelling, punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its formal presentation, which may be regarded as the accidents, or as I shall call them 'accidentals', of the text" (21).
[I disagree with Greg's statement that substantives constitute "the significant . . . readings of the text, those namely that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression" (21). This might be true in many cases of prose writing, but in a modern poem, a comma or a line-break can have a radical role in shaping "the essence" of the author's expression.]
BASIC POINT: "The true theory is, I contend, that the copy-text should govern (generally) in the matter of accidentals, but that the choice between substantive readings belongs to the general theory of textual criticism and lies altogether beyond the narrow principle of the copy-text. Thus it may happen that in a critical edition the text rightly chosen as copy may not by any means be the one that supplies most substantive readings in cases of variation" (26).
THE PROBLEM OF REVISIONS (and the necessity of good personal judgement!): "The fact is that cases of revision differ so greatly in circumstances and character that it seems impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when an editor should take the original edition as his copy-text and when the revised reprint. All that can be said is that if the original be selected, then the author's corrections must be incorporated; and that if the reprint be selected, then the original reading must be restored when that of the reprint is due to unauthorized variation. Thus the editor cannot escape the responsibility of distinguishing to the best of his ability between the two categories. No juggling with copy-text will relieve him of the duty and necessity of exercizing his own judgement."
As I understand, this is one of the seminal essays in all 20th century textual criticism, as is demonstrated by the introduction of so many ideas and terms that would establish themselves as mainstays in the scholarly debates and in the technical jargon.
ACCIDENTALS AND SUBSTANTIVES: "we need to draw a distinction between the significant, or as I shall call them 'substantive', readings of the text, those namely that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression, and others, such in general as spelling, punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its formal presentation, which may be regarded as the accidents, or as I shall call them 'accidentals', of the text" (21).
[I disagree with Greg's statement that substantives constitute "the significant . . . readings of the text, those namely that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression" (21). This might be true in many cases of prose writing, but in a modern poem, a comma or a line-break can have a radical role in shaping "the essence" of the author's expression.]
BASIC POINT: "The true theory is, I contend, that the copy-text should govern (generally) in the matter of accidentals, but that the choice between substantive readings belongs to the general theory of textual criticism and lies altogether beyond the narrow principle of the copy-text. Thus it may happen that in a critical edition the text rightly chosen as copy may not by any means be the one that supplies most substantive readings in cases of variation" (26).
THE PROBLEM OF REVISIONS (and the necessity of good personal judgement!): "The fact is that cases of revision differ so greatly in circumstances and character that it seems impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when an editor should take the original edition as his copy-text and when the revised reprint. All that can be said is that if the original be selected, then the author's corrections must be incorporated; and that if the reprint be selected, then the original reading must be restored when that of the reprint is due to unauthorized variation. Thus the editor cannot escape the responsibility of distinguishing to the best of his ability between the two categories. No juggling with copy-text will relieve him of the duty and necessity of exercizing his own judgement."
Friday, January 18, 2008
MLA guidelines
http://www.mla.org/cse_guidelines
The official Modern Language Association "guidelines for editors of scholarly editions" provide an excellent starting point for anyone venturing for the first time, as myself, into the world of textual criticism. They offer a thorugh checklist for editors, aimed at the redaction of a "reliable" text. They also include a useful glossary of relevant terms (like "collation", "emendation", "base text", "copy text", "accidentals" vs. "substantives", "textual notes" vs. "explanatory notes", "stemma", etc.) and an annotated bibliography of the key works in the theory of textual editing.
The official Modern Language Association "guidelines for editors of scholarly editions" provide an excellent starting point for anyone venturing for the first time, as myself, into the world of textual criticism. They offer a thorugh checklist for editors, aimed at the redaction of a "reliable" text. They also include a useful glossary of relevant terms (like "collation", "emendation", "base text", "copy text", "accidentals" vs. "substantives", "textual notes" vs. "explanatory notes", "stemma", etc.) and an annotated bibliography of the key works in the theory of textual editing.
Textual Scholarship in the United States
http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/cse.htm
The mission page of the Committee for Scholarly Editions (CSE) alleges a great deal of activity and advancement in the area of textual scholarship. While I am certainly no authority in this regard, I have been led to believe (by my Italian professors and by my readings) that the field of textual criticism versed in a sorry state around here, and that the quality of critical editions remains quite poor in the United States as compared to overseas. In Italy (my country of origin), in particular, textual criticism is thriving and very advanced. This seems quite natural, as the primary works of the national canon are mostly from the medieval and Renaissance periods, and establishing acceptable texts is still problematic, even for the major authors. New critical editions of Dante, Petrarch, Ariosto, Tasso, etc.. spurt out with extraordinary frequency, like mushrooms in rain, and armies of philologists still come to blows over every page of the Convivio, the Vita Nuova, The Gerusalemme, and so forth. The extremly recent inception of the CSE (in 1976) appears to confirm that in the US, at least until recently, the field of textual scholarship has been largely neglected. Is that in fact the case? And if so, why? and what does that mean? Thoughts/comments?
The mission page of the Committee for Scholarly Editions (CSE) alleges a great deal of activity and advancement in the area of textual scholarship. While I am certainly no authority in this regard, I have been led to believe (by my Italian professors and by my readings) that the field of textual criticism versed in a sorry state around here, and that the quality of critical editions remains quite poor in the United States as compared to overseas. In Italy (my country of origin), in particular, textual criticism is thriving and very advanced. This seems quite natural, as the primary works of the national canon are mostly from the medieval and Renaissance periods, and establishing acceptable texts is still problematic, even for the major authors. New critical editions of Dante, Petrarch, Ariosto, Tasso, etc.. spurt out with extraordinary frequency, like mushrooms in rain, and armies of philologists still come to blows over every page of the Convivio, the Vita Nuova, The Gerusalemme, and so forth. The extremly recent inception of the CSE (in 1976) appears to confirm that in the US, at least until recently, the field of textual scholarship has been largely neglected. Is that in fact the case? And if so, why? and what does that mean? Thoughts/comments?
CAVE CANEM!
I am new to this, but I'm pretty sure I came up with a wicked title for my blog...
Jokes aside, on this page I will post comments, thoughts, and other material related to Prof. Viscomi's ENGL 841 seminar. I am new to the worlds of textual editing and hypermedia, so bear with me if my entries are irrelevant, banal, or misguided...
a presto,
David Cane
Jokes aside, on this page I will post comments, thoughts, and other material related to Prof. Viscomi's ENGL 841 seminar. I am new to the worlds of textual editing and hypermedia, so bear with me if my entries are irrelevant, banal, or misguided...
a presto,
David Cane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
