Murphy’s “Revision as a “Living Affair” in Henry James’s New York Edition” and Eric Leuschner’s “Utterly, insurmountably, unsaleable”: Collected Editions, Prefaces and the “Failure” of Henry James’s New York Edition”, in unpicking the tangled ethical mess that is literary revision; demonstrate how textual revision raises questions about textual authority. Murphy’s discussion of the conflicting revisionist and preservationist stances on textual revision demonstrates that philosophical considerations underpin these difference views (Murphy 163).
The revisionist is someone who recognises the creative capacity of the revised text in keeping the said text alive and relevant whilst the preservationist advocates that the text should remain unaltered. The preservationist disputes the author’s reputed authority, and ability, to adapt the text for the better (163-164). Linking this divide on views of literary revision to Leuschner’s discussion of James’s failed “New York Edition” (37), these conflicting stances on literary revision really reflect divided opinions over textual ownership. Preservationists assert that the public owns the text once it enters the marketplace, whilst the revisionists’ view stems from the assumption that the author still owns the text, and thus the authority to alter it.
Identifying these different views on literary revision and discussing the rationales behind them does not, however, resolve the question of where textual authority lies. Rather, Murphy and Leuschner’s musings reaffirm how murky the issue is. The preservationist conception of the literary work as a static object is perhaps a little misguided, as they seem to treat it more like a painting that an piece of literature. The fact that a piece of literature, unlike a painting, remains in the possession of the author, gives him or her more opportunity to change it, and a piece of literature is physically easier to alter than a finished painting (Murphy 169). The link between historical conditions and the emergence of the revisionist versus preservationist approaches to literary revision, throw into doubt how objective it is to stolidly support these views on their own. James’s revision of his works would largely have to do with rise of the collected edition, which would have given him a chance to release the definitive version of his texts (Murphy 168). Similarly, the expansion of copyright laws to protect the authority of literary works probably fostered the preservationist approach (Murphy 167).
On a closing note, though, the validity of the revisionist approach in the case of James seems largely redundant because his revised works failed to be financially viable (Leuschner 24). Whether one likes it or not, books are products and need to meet consumers’ needs to be successful. With the rise of the collected edition, as Leuschner states, the public saw such editions “as a way of “owning” the author, of being able to say that they had “James” on the shelf (37). The failure of James’s New York Edition demonstrates that you can quibble all you like about the author’s right to revise their work, but the work's reception as a consumer commodity will measure its success. The public will presume that they own works of the canon and always reduce the authority of the author to revise his or her work.
Works Cited
Murphy, Stephen J. “Revision as a “Living Affair” in Henry James’s New York
Edition”. The Henry James Review. 29.2 (2008): p163-180. Project
Muse. The John Hopkins UP. 28 Sept. 2010. <http://muse.jhu.edu>.
Leuschner, Eric. “Utterly, insurmountably, unsaleable”: Collected Editions, Prefaces, and
the “Failure” of Henry James’s New York Edition”. The Henry James Review.
22.1 (2001): p24 – 40. Project Muse. The John Hopkins UP. 28 Sept.
2010. <http://muse.jhu.edu>.
No comments:
Post a Comment