Authoritative Texts: Codex to Digital

Jerome J. McGann’s article “A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism” examines the question of authoritative texts when the authoritative documents are absent. McGann discusses the problem of Shakespeare’s authoritative texts stating:

The state of the Shakespearean texts corresponded to the state of the classical and biblical texts in this respect: in each case the authorized documents were missing, so that critical editors were faced with the problem of sorting through the mediated texts which developed subsequently (17).

The shape of the 18^th century editing and decisions around authority included editors choosing aesthetic changes, collaborative texts as authoritative and economic profit. Tonson, for instance, reprints Hanmers edition for a cheaper selling price. Since the 18^th century textual criticism and scholarly editing procedures have become about finding the purest form of authoritative text rather than involving editors aesthetic preference. 

This brings me to my next point about authoritative: As we have discussed in class the codex remains the preferred and “trusted” form of scholarly literature, while the online versions are considered second standing. Often times online versions of books will follow the same format as the codex, and as Lora mentioned in class – the original kindle was created to look like a book. This is interesting and important in the context of Shakespeare and authoritative texts because the Oxford edition of Shakespeare’s Complete Collection of Works exists in an online form and a book form, but the works included in each form differ. Works that are considered subpar, less Shakespearian or his collaborative works can be found on the online edition, but not in the codex form. This implies and reinforces the hierarchy between digital texts and codex texts. How does this influence digital humanities and the Shakespeare’s canon? Giving preference to one form over another hinders the progression of digital humanities authoritative presence in the realm of scholarly editing and textual criticism. 

Applying Vandendorpes “From Papyrus to Hypertext” to Modern Day Video Games: I Click, Therefore I Have Freewill

In Christian Vandendorpe’s book, From Papyrus to Hypertext, Vandendorpe illustrates that the rise of the internet has caused us to move “from a mass-media culture to a participatory culture” (155). As a result, we read and engage differently with the codex, media, hypertexts and so forth. He examines this change and the results of this change best in his chapter “I Click, Therefore I Read”, stating: “Movement by means of mouse clicks gives readers a sense of control – insofar as the program allows them such control, of course – and a feeling of being able to give free rein to their impulses” (133). However, as we discussed in Wednesday’s class this sense of freedom is artificial – for example, our choices are restricted over time through “tailored” google searches. Dr. McDayter’s paradigmatic and syntagmatic axis reinforces this idea that our choices are limited – as we progress across the syntagmatic trajectory our paradigmatic choices decrease.

This sense of artificial control and participation can be applied to the “choices” and narrative of modern day video games. For example, in “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” you are given various “choices” to become either evil or good and these choices effect the narrative and the outcome of the game, which gives the player a sense of “control”. I’ve beaten the game as both “evil” and “good”, but the differences are slight. The changes exist in minimal details such as your skills, abilities, weapons, rewards, allies and so forth, but the overall narrative is predetermined and limited. You still exist within the narrative of the game – there are various obstacles that you must overcome to complete the game, but the interactions you have with characters is somewhat varied (typically four choices). Evidently, this idea that “I Click, Therefore I Read” or “I Click, Therefore I Have Freewill” gives readers and gamers a false sense of control – for we are limited by the games predetermined narrative regardless of our “choices”.