|
In review, we have examined six principal concepts:
The Missouri Review circa 1999 is created using a mature technology: the idea of mass producing a fixed text was begun with the invention of the printing press in
the 1600’s. While the actual machines generating the finished product have changed dramatically, the relationship between the technology and Western culture/society have not changed significantly. The lexia are written, processed
and reproduced in multiplicity. Hence a text that is both fixed and exists in multiple copies.
All references to the metatext depend on footnotes such as those accompanying The Letters of Djuna Barnes and Emily Holmes Coleman on pages 142-146 of Volume XXII, Number 3 1999.++
In some texts, the lexia can be seen as individual chapters or even a page such as
this website. In much the same manner, the paper version of the text consists of multiple lexia, each of which corresponds to a single work by a unique author. None of the writers knew about the relationship their piece would have to the
other pieces at the time they were written. Therefore, in both the versions of The Missouri Review, the written text and the website, authors such as Beth Goldner
and Eric Pankey, did not know their work would reside in a text along with translated Anton Chekhov or the letters of Djuna Barnes, and Barnes had no intention in writing these letters to include them in The Missouri Review or the website, therefore opening up interesting questions of intentionality. However, the editor’s forward to the entire text can be seen from a vantage point of familiarity
of the individual lexia as well as the text formed by these lexia when united by placement within the bounds of a book or on a website. Of the lexia in this book, only the forward was created with intentional relationships to the whole.
Referentially to the metatext is however a slippery idea. In the paper version of the text, the metatext exists. There is no specific indication to the metatext except
for footnotes and the book reviews which of course reference texts outside the journal itself. Therefore, for the most part, the dialog between the text and the
metatext exists in an intangible format. Each reader will connect to various aspects of this nebulous metatext depending on their socioeconomic position, cultural, and residency in various physical locations.
The boundaries of this text are clearly defined by its physical construction. There is a cover, between which exists all the individual texts and their lexia. Each
individual lexia is separated from others by typesetting conventions such as starting each new lexia on a new page, on some pages including the name of the
individual author in the page footer, by listing the individual subtexts in the table of contents and by grouping texts according to the categories of Fiction, Interview, History as Literature, Poetry, Essays, and Book Reviews.
In the manner in which the text and lexia are organized, the actual text of The Missouri Review is struggling to keep each work as a separate text. Each lexia
utilizes paratext to delineate itself from its neighboring lexia. Each lexia begins on a new page with the work’s title and author. The footer of each page, reflects the
author’s name and the name of the text as well as a page number to indicate the reader’s position in relationship to the entire text at any given point. Because these
works are united by being bound together in the same text, there is an implied relationship between the texts that is implicit rather than explicit. In contrast, the
relationships between various lexia of this website are explicitly created by the use of hyperlinks between relevant portions.
In the analysis of authority, we discovered that on the Web, authority is not explicit. Just because a text exists does not give it any intrinsic value. The authority
behind The Missouri Review is based on a number of factors. First off, this text is affiliated with an accredited University. In our society, the information or
authority of the University carries much more weight than does the poor ramblings of a university student. Furthermore, the fact that an individual is required to
submit for consideration any piece to be included in this literary journal gives the impression that only quality work is include. (This of course is a matter of
opinion). The definitions of quality work are implied by the relationship of the journal to the University. Furthermore, the reputation of the text exists outside of
the text itself and is nothing more than a relative consensus of opinion over time as to the value of the lexia contained within the text.
Additional authority is gained from the masthead references to financial support from the Missouri Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts. There
is a concerted effort to hold power over the ideas contained in this text. Finally, the physical presence of a text imparts a sense of power or authority. A hardcover book bound in leather seems more important, than a photocopied text
bound in a notebook. However, these physical trapping of a text are culturally and socially created and do not have absolute value any more than the lexia have
absolute valued.
While any paper text can exist in a multi-linear temporal space provided a reader chooses different orders in reading, the actual representation of a linear text is
emphasized by the number of the pages, by the actual physical boundaries of the text. There is a front and a back. A beginning and an end. The Missouri Reviews linearity is emphasized by the paratextual elements of page numbers. The Table of
Contents is another paratextual element that indicates a sense of linearity; however, in this case the linearity is arranged by categories of lexia rather than the
order in which they appear in the text. Therefore, this book encourages two versions of linearity and prior to being read exists in the potential of multi-linearity.
Of course, a reader is always free to read in an order she desires. The difference between a reader creating a random order or following one of many available and
designated orders is more of a difference in authorial intention, i.e., did the author intend the text to be read in multi-linear method, thereby creating opportunities for
differing opinions in connection with the text. Or did the author intend to impose her sense of the text on another individual.
The issues of decentralization and power or author(ity) are intrinsically intertwined. For a text to have power over anything or anyone else, the text must
recognize the centrality of the source of power. If the text acknowledges that there are multiple centers of power, and does not insist on playing to only one source of power, than a decentralization of power exists. In The Missouri
Review paper journal, there is a display of power on the first printed page within the text. The ____ page clearly names the powers involved in assembling this text.
The editor, managing editors, and various advisors and interns are listed by name. The authority providing permission for reprints of works by deceased authors are
also listed. Finally, the attempt to centralize power in this text is contained by the ownership of the text, copyright information, and sources of financial support for the publication.
The inside back cover of the text, continues the specification of power by listing individuals who financially support the journal. There is no attempt to hide the
power or diffuse its authority. Therefore, the journal exists as a centrally controlled text in a world in which authority can be ignored by simply no reading the text.
|
