Melville, Revision, and Collaborative Editing: Toward a Critical Archive
J. Bryant
2010-06-01
Abstract:Although forgotten in the late nineteenth century, Herman Melville has (since the mid-twentieth century) become one of the nation’s and the world’s most influential writers. Rediscovered in the 1920s, his reputation and impact on modernism and postmodernism gained full recognition in the 1940s and 1950s. Supplanting Irving, Longfellow, and even Hawthorne, he has become America’s representative writer: intellectually engaged, politically diverse, aesthetically daring, and economically vexed. Melville has not only survived the re-canonization of recent decades, but his work also continues to help us articulate problems of identity and culture, and it has inspired successive generations of mainstream and minority writers and readers alike. But despite Melville’s enduring presence in our culture and world literature, no comprehensive electronic archive devoted to Melville has yet been launched. Designed to address this serious deficiency, the Melville Electronic Library (MEL), now in its initial planning stages, will provide scholars, critics, instructors, students and general readers with unprecedented access to Melville’s standard works. In recent decades, we have also come to know various “new Melvilles” associated with less familiar materials. The heavily revised Typee manuscript (or any of Melville’s many working-draft manuscripts) reveals the writer to be a relentless reviser; annually discovered annotated volumes from Melville’s dispersed library indicate a voracious reader studying to be a poet; and Melville’s recently catalogued print collection discloses him to be an avid collector of fine art. But the evidence of these new versions of Melville is lodged in unique, virtually inaccessible, heretofore irreproducible materials. If funded, MEL would provide the tools for accessing these new Melvilles: the reviser, reader, poet, collector. In its fullest form, MEL would be a “critical archive.” To be sure, like other electronic archives, it would contain digital reproductions of all relevant primary and secondary sources—manuscripts, print texts, source works, Melville’s marginalia, biographical materials, a gallery of Melville’s print collection, adaptations of Melville works, and a bibliography of and selections from the critical response to Melville—located in easily navigated, hyperlinked “library rooms.” But the archive would also be “critical” in that editors and students would be able to interact collaboratively in building the archive, creating transcriptions and editions, engaging students in classroom projects, and exploring the interpretive consequences of the archive’s content. With these ends in mind, this proposal focuses on the new Melville revealed to us in manuscript: Melville as reviser and the sequential versions (“fluid texts”) of three sample works as he revised them: “The Town-Ho’s Story” (Moby-Dick), the poem “Monody,” and selections from Billy Budd. A NEH Digital Start-Up grant (Level I) would provide funding to initiate the general organization of MEL and the creation of a feature called TextLab to enable collaborative “fluid text” editing. More specifically, I would be able to consult with Melville scholars to establish a general workflow schedule and agree upon assignments for handling content in the assembling of MEL. And it would also enable me to work with Hofstra’s Faculty Computing department to adapt open-source software (like Batik and Subversion) that draw upon open-standards (TEI, XML, and SVG) to create an innovative application allowing individuals in an editorial or classroom group to download images of Melville manuscripts and print texts, mark the revision sites directly on each image, transcribe the texts and sites in an expansion of XML that links image and transcription, and link both image and transcription to annotated revision narratives, either to create critical editions of fluid texts or to conduct pedagogical workshops for the study of manuscripts and print texts in revision. The idea is to create a model for manuscript and revision transcription as well as collaborative editing that would be readily adapted to the works of any author.