| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
I've always been an Austen fan, so was intrigued to learn about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11610489 | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Wow. That REALLY is fascinating. I would love to read more on this. I'm surprised it hasn't caused or courted some sort of controversy. I'd love to be able see how her 'original' dialogue worked, as much as her prose. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
*Sigh*... that cynical, jaded, weary and untrusting mind of mine.... The key in the article to me was: "The three-year project - in which King's College London, the Bodleian Library in Oxford and the British Library in London were involved - is due to be launched on 25 October." They needed PR. So they cooked this up. That's all I got out of this piece. | ||
| Jamie Rosen (Jamie) Username: Jamie Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 99.240.203.201 |
What stood out to me was the apparent perception that if a draft isn't letter perfect, the editor must be the one who fixed it. I guess these researchers are unfamiliar with the concept of revision. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
I'm pretty sure that will have been factored in. | ||
| Jamie Rosen (Jamie) Username: Jamie Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 99.240.203.201 |
I don't know, Gary; the article says that it was her "unpublished manuscripts" that they looked at. Which means that they don't even have a published draft to compare it to. This, from the analysis sidebar, is the only part of the article that seems to support its assertion: "Letters between Austen's publisher and an editor who worked with him acknowledge the untidiness of her writing." That sounds like more convincing evidence than any number of pages of unpublished work, because unpublished work is just that. Now, I'm not saying that I have any solid reason to believe that the editors didn't make substantive revisions to her texts. And certainly I wouldn't want to make any claims about the research project on the basis of one or two news articles of a few hundred words each. I'll be interested to see more information as it comes out. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I simply think it is of interest whether or not the editor was involved on the grounds of seeing how Austen worked. I'm utterly fascinated by the writer's process. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I meant writers' process in general. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
But academics control for things like this, Jamie. I'm not an English professor, but I believe that leaving herself open to the charge you make - it just needed a second draft - would have been the first thing she would have considered: if not her, then peers who'd have laughed her out of the 'conference room'. This kind of analysis is done methodically; it isn't just a casual browse on a rainy afternoon. And I'm not necessarily saying that the academic's conclusion is correct. I'm just saying she'd have reached it with some rigor. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
 | ||
| Jamie Rosen (Jamie) Username: Jamie Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 99.240.203.201 |
You're right, of course, Gary. I think, in retrospect, my issue isn't with the project, but with the way it's presented in the article. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Right-o, mate. |