Skip Navigation

Literary and Linguistic Computing 2009 24(1):41-52; doi:10.1093/llc/fqn030
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ALLC and ACH. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Literary and Linguistic Computing issue: Special Issue 'Computing the Edition' [View the issue table of contents]

What text really is not, and why editors have to learn to swim

Peter Robinson

Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing, University of Birmingham, UK

Correspondence: Peter Robinson, Elmfield House, Selly Oak Campus, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B29 6LG, UK. E-mail: p.m.robinson{at}bham.ac.uk

   Abstract

This article attempts to ask some fundamental questions about editing in the digital age, and give some answers to these questions. It is argued that a concentration on digital methods, for themselves, may neglect the base questions facing any editor: why is the editor making this edition; from whom is the editor making this edition? Indeed, in some respects thinking about text encoding for digital purposes has been built on assumptions which are, for editors, simply wrong. In particular, the concept of what ‘text’ is, upon which (for instance) the Text Encoding Initiative principles are based (what Renear calls ‘realist’), is positivist, overconfident, simplistic and neglects the materiality of actual text instances. This view is opposed by what Renear calls ‘anti-realism’: texts do not have an independent existence, but are constructed by individual and collective acts of perception. In concrete terms, ‘anti-realism’ sees editions as made to serve the needs of the reader, as acts of interpretation and not as representations of some concrete reality: this is Pichler's view of the Wittgenstein transcripts, and the author's views of the Canterbury Tales project transcripts. However, it is argued that both realist and anti-realist extremes are dangerous: ‘realism’ can lead to editions which are arrogant and out-of-touch; anti-realism to editions which are reductionist and etiolated. In place of either extreme, we should substitute a different aim: to challenge readers to make new texts for themselves as they read, by finding new ways of presenting material so that both we editors and those who use our editions become better readers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.