Dear everybody-
Although it can be too late to contribute this discussion, I want to add my
2 cents.
Luiz replied to Steve,
> <Why can't literature be just as real on screens as it is in beautifully
> bound books? Does the screen format really add another layer of mediation
> that is fundamentally different from the layer of editing that is involved
> in creating a new edition of a book? Perhaps rather than another layer,
we
> just have the possibility of many versions.>
>
> I disagree. The production of a new edition of a printed book is very
> different from the adaptation of this same book to the Web. The media are
> different. This is not to say that the notion of "literature" doesn't
apply
> to texts on the screen. Rather, what we have here is a change in our
notion
> of what counts as "literature" - a change brought about by our uses of a
new
> technology.
Last year together with my colleagues, I published an article in an on-line
journal. During since its publication I made 3 important revisions to the
article while it is located on the web. I do not think it could have been
possible in a paper version. This creates an interesting problem of
referring to web-based text since it can change... So I'm with Luiz on that
issue that paper and web are two different media...
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luiz Carlos Baptista [mailto:lucabaptista@sapo.pt]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:35 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Lots of interesting points in your message. I'll follow some threads.
>
> <the absolute similarity of copies does not negate the obvious fact that
> even a digital copy is not the same thing as the original performance,
> image, or whatever it is a recording of.>
>
> I agree. But then there is a qualitative difference between digital and
> analogic representation, and it's the fact that whenever we create/produce
> something in digital mode (say, a software, a video game, a piece of
> "techno" music) the "copies" of this work are undistinguishable from the
> "original". There is no loss of quality or information, and the very
notions
> of "original" and "copy" become problematic, to say the least.
>
>
> <Just where do we locate a literary "original"? Is it the author's
original
> manuscript? Perhaps the serialization of their writing in a newspaper (as
> many of Charles Dickens' books were)? The first edition of the first book
> the text appeared in? The highest quality edition ever published? The
> current edition in print? The best e-book version available?>
>
> Tricky questions indeed. But I think that as regards literature, there is
> already a well-established tradition of scholarship and interpretation
which
> employs procedures to identify "authoritative" versions of literary works
> (not that this identification is always without argument; the contrary
seems
> to be the case, but at least there is a common basis for discussion).
>
>
> <And then, just to reverse the order of events, how about literary writing
> that originates on the internet? Suppose the next great Portuguese novel
is
> originally published on the web - and subsequently printed in book form.
> Wouldn't the production of this work in book form then be a "layer of
> mediation"?>
>
> Of course it would. For instance, a book published on the Web has a
> different structure than in print. Think about hypertext links, the
absence
> of page numbers, the different division of sections, etc. Besides that, if
a
> text is too long we'd rather print it, because the screen is not as good
as
> paper to read. All this is to say that a printed book can "have" more
layers
> of mediation than a computer, no problem with that.
>
>
> <Why can't literature be just as real on screens as it is in beautifully
> bound books? Does the screen format really add another layer of mediation
> that is fundamentally different from the layer of editing that is involved
> in creating a new edition of a book? Perhaps rather than another layer,
we
> just have the possibility of many versions.>
>
> I disagree. The production of a new edition of a printed book is very
> different from the adaptation of this same book to the Web. The media are
> different. This is not to say that the notion of "literature" doesn't
apply
> to texts on the screen. Rather, what we have here is a change in our
notion
> of what counts as "literature" - a change brought about by our uses of a
new
> technology.
>
> Rgrds,
>
> Luiz Carlos Baptista
> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> lucabaptista@hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:12 PST