For the purposes of my arguement, I will often refer to the print age. However, when I say this, I often mean the beginning of the print age up through the time before computers and word processors.
One of the aspects of McGann's article that I found most interesting was his idea that it is possible that print is not really the great answer it seems to be to all of our problems. I also approve of his use of Emily Dickinson as an example. Dickinson wrote most of her poetry, not for print, but for herself and friends, in little books, handwritten and sewn together. She worked with what McGann refers to as "visual and sonic arrangement of the page space." There can be seen in her handwriting, a growth throughout her texts. There is a difference in the metrical scheme and the arrangement. (Pictures of the following can be seen throughout McGann's article). In 1861, Dickinson used her text page for "dramatic interplays between a poetics of the eye and a poetics of the ear." She frequently started experimenting with "visible languages". (This in itself is interesting but there isn't enough time in a month to discuss it).
These ideas cannot be seen in many printed versions of Dickinson's works from the beginning of the printing revolution, hence they have since been lost to us in current volumes, copied from those earlier editions. Dickinson's editors have nearly completely erased half of what makes Dickinson's poetry so wonderful. Had her editors not "creatively edited" her works experimenting with an early age of verse, the whole world of poetry may be different. The general idea at the beginning of the printing revolution was that the print age would be the answer to everything. Everything must be typed and bound. Now that we have computers and can simulate and reproduce almost any work, there is an unwritten standard that says that work must be typed, but not neccesarily bound. For Dickinson's work, I believe it was more important to remian handwritten and handsewn. The appearance is part of her poetry.
If this were the subject of my term paper, I would no doubt turn in a handwritten, handsewn copy. It's true that the audience would be smaller, but then comes the question: What is more important - the the work or the audience?
Now, even books are being replaced. The World-Wide-Web is taking texts inside and replacing the hand-held pages and bindings with a keyboard and a mouse. Is it possible that this new medium is erasing an important aspect of writing? Will we be able to truely decide before we lose something important or have we already lost it?
Dickinson's handsewn books were an important part of her art and that has been destroyed. Will computers, even though they are capable of creating and copying some art, erase the art of print books as print books erased script?
Return to the syllabus.