Social Authorship Research Articles

ПОЕТИКА ФЕЙСБУК-РОМАНУ О. ШИНКАРЕНКА «КАГАРЛИК» ЯК ЯВИЩА УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ЛІТЕРАТУРИ В ЦИФРОВУ ЕПОХУ

The article examines Oleh Shynkarenko’s novel “Kaharlyk” as an example of the Ukrainian literature of the digital age. It is an experimental novel as it combines two forms a digital and printed ones. The purpose of the study is to outline specific features of the poetics of O. Shynkarenko’s Facebook novel “Kaharlyk” as a piece of writing incorporating the characteristics of both postmodernist and digimodernist texts. This predetermines the following tasks: to generalize the characteristic features of digital textuality proposed by A. Kirby, to outline the concept of network literature, to determine the genre features of the novel, to study the characteristic features of its form in Facebook social network (in particular, to analyze author's and reader's comments under the posts-episodes of the novel) and in the printed edition (based on the 2015 book published by Luta Sprava Publishing), to determine, on the example of this novel, how the interaction in the author-text-reader paradigm has changed in the literature of the digital age. The study uses intermedial, intertextual, comparative, and structuralist methods of analysis. The novelty of the article lies in a detailed study of the electronic version of the novel, particularly, in the analysis of author’s and reader’s comments on the Facebook page of the novel “Kaharlyk”. The research showed that typical postmodern features of both the electronic and printed versions of O. Shynkarenko’s novel “Kaharlyk” are as follows: genre hybridity, intertextuality, absurdity, and irony. In addition, the novel possesses the features of a digimodernist text, including onwardness, haphazardness, evanescence, reformulation and intermediation of textual roles, anonymous, multiple and social authorship, the fluid-bounded text, and the nature of electronic-digitality. These features are mostly inherent in the online version of the novel, but are also found in the printed edition.

‘A Library of Our Own Compositions’: The Minervian Library and Children’s Social Authorship in Victorian Orkney

Abstract This article examines the Minervian Library, an extraordinary collection of children’s manuscript stories produced in mid-Victorian Orkney. Established in 1866 by sisters Mary and Clara Cowan and their cousin Isabella Bremner, the collaborative project had ambitions beyond its beginnings as a family literary endeavour: the girls envisaged a working library complete with membership and borrowing records. On offer to the ‘Library Damsels of the Minervian Library’, as they dubbed their members, were 50 of their own original compositions, mostly comprising fairy tales, domestic dramas, and stories of European nobility. In this article, we argue that an analysis of these manuscripts and the social networks in which they were produced and circulated challenges our understanding of literary juvenilia and its relationship to wider cultural processes. We posit that the manuscripts offer a striking example of juvenile ‘social authorship’, not only in the sense of their circulation among a community of readers, but also in the ways that the authors actively engaged with developing literary trends, such as the emergence of the European literary fairy tale, and responded to contemporary debates about girlhood and girls’ lives. In this way, the Minervian Library demonstrates that children were not simply passive consumers of cultural activities, but could also be participants in the creation of collective meanings and discourses.

Keats, Incorporated: Social Authorship and the Making of a Brand

ABSTRACT Our essay extends recent criticism—that challenges the notion of Keats as a solitary genius unengaged with social life and politics—to the realms of literary marketing and bookmaking. Keats, we argue, was anything but uninterested in the business of literature, let alone irreparably wounded by savage treatment in the press. Our essay thus asks how Endymion’s reception informed Keats’s and his circle’s preparation of Lamia, Isabella, The Eve of St. Agnes, and Other Poems for the press. “Keats Incorporated” presents a practical-minded Keats who, with his team of editors and publishers, sought to market “the Author of Endymion” to audiences tired of partisan reviewing practices. Examining the 1820 volume’s ordering of poems, newspaper advertisements, letters between members of Keats’s team, and understudied paratexts from all three of Keats’s published books, we show how the Lamia volume constructs a marketable authorial persona—one that emerges from that earlier maligned volume.

Writing to the World: Letters and the Origins of Modern Print Genres by Rachael Scarborough King

Reviewed by: Writing to the World: Letters and the Origins of Modern Print Genres by Rachael Scarborough King Hilary Havens Rachael Scarborough King, Writing to the World: Letters and the Origins of Modern Print Genres (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2018). Pp. 272; 6 halftones, 3 maps. $44.95 cloth. The past few decades have produced a number of studies on interactions between manuscript and print during the long eighteenth century that overturn long-held notions of print’s preeminence. Margaret J. M. Ezell’s Social Authorship and the Advent of Print (1999) and David McKitterick’s Print, Manuscript, and the Search for Order, 1450–1830 (2003) are two of the earliest studies to observe that the emergence of print was “less a revolution than an accommodation . . . partly defined by the employment of older techniques having their roots in the manuscript tradition.”1 Betty A. Schellenberg’s more recent Literary Coteries and the Making of Modern Print in England, 1740–1790 (2016) focuses on late eighteenth-century manuscript exchanging coteries, arguing that they “bridged” the gap between scribal and print cultures, which “collaborated or came into conflict” and used forms “adapted from manuscript practice to serve the ends of the print medium.”2 Some of these studies, particularly Eve Tavor Bannet’s The Empire of Letters: Letter Manuals and Transatlantic Correspondence, 1680–1820 (2005) and Clare Brant’s Eighteenth-Century Letters and British Culture (2006), focalize manuscript and print interactions through letter manuals and the letter form itself, demonstrating not only that the epistolary form held central importance for multiple genres, but also the continuing interaction between print and manuscript through the end of the long eighteenth century.3 One of the newest contributions to this conversation on manuscript, print, and epistolarity in the eighteenth century is Rachael Scarborough King’s lucid and engaging Writing to the World: Letters and the Origins of Modern Print Genres, though King does not clearly situate her book among previous studies on manuscript and print until the concluding “bibliographical essay.” King’s main contribution is her conceptualization of the “bridge genre,” “a genre that facilitates change by providing writers and readers with paths across shifting media landscapes” (2), to [End Page 401] illustrate how the letter not only served as a transition from manuscript to print during the long eighteenth century, but also aided in the formation of several new genres—newspapers, periodicals, biographical “lives,” and novels—concurrent with the expansion of postal and communication networks, print publications, and literacy. The book is divided into five chapters that focus on these four new genres (two of them on the novel) and related interactions between manuscript and print. Chapter one discusses the London Gazette, the only English newspaper from 1666 to 1678 and the primary one until 1695, to demonstrate how “written and printed media worked in tandem and in addition to the traditional oral circulation of news” (25). While examples from other newspapers that extended into the mid-eighteenth century would have broadened King’s argument, her claim that the London Gazette—and thus the newspaper as a genre—took its structure from the letter form is completely convincing: “from the sense of an ongoing, unfolding exchange with no determinate ending, the need to traverse space and time to deliver information, the formatting of news into short and separate items, and the conceit of a particular reader or community of readers to whom the writing is pertinent” (38). Specific examples—such as how manuscript newsletters persisted in the time of printed news and were bundled together through the mail, and how newspaper articles were essentially letters divested of epistolary markers—bolster King’s case for the epistolary origins of newspapers. King’s other two chapters on non-novel genres contain similar revela-tory finds. Chapter two discusses the function of letters in three periodicals: John Dunton’s Athenian Mercury, Daniel Defoe’s Review, and Joseph Addison and Richard Steele’s Spectator. King contends that as with newspapers, letters served as the structural model of the earliest periodicals, though as the genre developed, there was a shift from authentic to fictionalized letters while editors assumed more expansive roles. Dunton’s Athenian Mercury was made up...

Rediscovering Cumulative Creativity from the Oral Formulaic Tradition to Digital Remix: Can I Get a Witness?

For most of human history, the essential nature of creativity was understood to be cumulative and collective. This notion has been largely forgotten by modern policies that regulate creativity and speech. As hard as it may be to believe, the most valuable components of our immortal culture were created under a fully open regime with regard to access to pre-existing expressions and reuse. From the Platonic mimesis to Shakespeare’s “borrowed feathers,” the largest part of our culture has been produced under a paradigm in which imitation — even plagiarism — and social authorship formed constitutive elements of the creative moment. Pre-modern creativity spread from a continuous line of re-use and juxtaposition of pre-existing expressive content, transitioning from orality to textuality and then melding the two traditions. The cumulative and collaborative character of the oral formulaic tradition dominated the development of epic literature. The literary pillars of Western culture, the Iliad and the Odyssey, were fully forged in the furnace of that tradition. Later, under the aegis of Macrobius’ art of rewriting and the Latin principles of imitatio, medieval epics grew out of similar dynamics of sharing and recombination of formulas and traditional patterns. Continuations, free re-use, and the re-modeling of iconic figures and characters, such as King Arthur and Roland, made chansons de geste and romance literature powerful vehicles in propelling cross-country circulation of culture.The parallelism between past and present highlights the incapacity of the present copyright system to recreate the cumulative and collaborative creative process that proved so fruitful in the past. In particular, the constant development and recursive use of iconic characters, which served as an engine for creativity in epic literature, is but a fading memory. This is because our policies for creativity are engineered in a fashion that stymies the re-use of information and knowledge, rather than facilitating it. Under the current regime, intellectual works are supposedly created as perfect, self-sustaining artifacts from the moment of their creation. Any modifications, derivations, and cumulative additions must secure preventive approval and must be paid off, as if they were nuisances to society.Rereading the history of aesthetics is particularly inspiring at the dawn of the networked age. The dynamics of sharing of pre-modern creativity parallel the features of digital networked creativity. As in the oral-formulaic tradition, digital creativity reconnects its exponential generative capacity to the ubiquity of participatory contributions. Additionally, the formula — the single unit to be used and reused, worked and re-worked — is the building block of the remix culture as well as the oral formulaic tradition. Today, in an era of networked mass collaboration, ubiquitous online fan communities, user-based creativity, digital memes, and remix culture, the enclosure of knowledge brought about by an ever-expanding copyright paradigm is felt with renewed intensity. Therefore, I suggest that the communal, cumulative, social and collaborative nature of creativity and authorship should be rediscovered and should drive our policies. In order to plead my case, I have asked for the support of the most unexpected witnesses.

Social Authorship and the Mediation of Memory in Anne Grant’s Poetry

ABSTRACTIn the early 1820s, Anne MacVicar Grant (1755–1838) compiled a manuscript miscellany that exemplifies Grant’s poetic activities throughout her writing life and encapsulates the conditions under which she composed and circulated verse. I identify those conditions as a form of social authorship, and the miscellany as a media object that records activities of reading, writing, and manuscript circulation closely resembling those of literary coteries. Moreover, the miscellany functioned as a memorial to the social networks that the circulation of poetry had helped to create. Each poem formed a node not only in Grant’s social circles but in her memories of those circles so that the compilation and annotation of poems mediated Grant’s memories of her social circles to those with access to the volume. Grant’s iterative inscription and reading of the miscellany thus turned commemorative poetry into a technology for the medialization and memorialization of social networks.

Social Authorship and the Production of Texts in Late Chosŏn: An Analytical Bibliography

Abstract This research aims to revisit the study of the Ch’ŏngjanggwan chŏnsŏ (Complete works of Yi Tŏngmu, 1741-1793), with particular emphasis on its collaborative production, transmission, and modern appropriation. By analyzing eight different versions from North America, Japan, Korea, and China, I explore how each text was constructed by multiple agencies and constantly transformed through historical transmission. In the process of the collaborative production of the book, the selection of a primary author’s work was reinterpreted by the choices of those who received and collected the given collection of Yi’s writings. Although Yi is considered the author, each manuscript collection was transformed without his knowledge or consent. Thus, through a complex process of adaptation and transformation, a multiplicity of agencies involved in the production of the book have filtered and negotiated the author’s original intention. Addressing the notion of “social authorship,” this research challenges the solitary author model as well as the notion of canon as a complete and fixed entity. All the texts examined in this study were cultural and social products. Ch’ŏngjanggwan chŏnsŏ was produced and transformed through constant negotiations among the original author, editors, and readers. Although it has been valued as one of the most important literary canons of late Chosŏn, the collection was not a closed set of texts; rather, the particular set of texts in any version is “fluid and flexible,” and transformation during transmission was expected.

Uma investigação sobre a autoria de dados científicos: teias de uma rede em construção

Este trabalho objetiva analisar a autoria científica a partir do compartilhamento de dados de pesquisa. Para esta finalidade, utiliza a Teoria Ator-Rede (ANT), a qual busca, a partir de uma ideia de simetria entre humanos e não humanos, não assumir uma divisão entre essas entidades, possibilitando visualizar o estabelecimento e a dissolução de uma rede a partir das relações que se criam em diversos níveis. Os dados que serviram de base para descrição e análise a partir da literatura foram recolhidos a partir de observação, de entrevistas e de materiais bibliográficos. A investigação ocorreu junto ao Repositório de Dados de Estudos Ecológicos do Programa de Pesquisa em Biodiversidade (PPBio). Conclui que os objetos conceituais e pragmáticos não podem ser vistos de maneira isolada, mas sim como atores-rede afetados diretamente pela tecnologia, devendo ser considerados atuantes importantes no processo de produção, compartilhamento e uso de dados digitais de pesquisa. A construção do fato científico e social autoria é coordenada por uma série de elementos, como a coleta de dados, a curadoria, os próprios dados científicos, seus metadados, as fontes de fomento, a política de dados, o repositório e seus softwares de gerenciamento e envio de dados e metadados, o licenciamento, a propriedade e a responsabilidade, agindo como um tipo de instrumentalização de um arranjo de fenômenos.

“I have no pleasure in collecting for myself alone”: Social Authorship, Networks of Knowledge and Etheldred Benett’s Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the County of Wiltshire (1831)

“I have no pleasure in collecting for myself alone”: Social Authorship, Networks of Knowledge and Etheldred Benett’s Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the County of Wiltshire (1831)

Elizabeth Scott-Baumann Forms of Engagement: Women, Poetry, and Culture, 1640–1680Forms of Engagement: Women, Poetry, and Culture, 1640–1680. Elizabeth Scott-Baumann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. ix+236.

<i>Elizabeth Scott-Baumann</i> Forms of Engagement: Women, Poetry, and Culture, 1640–1680<i>Forms of Engagement: Women, Poetry, and Culture, 1640–1680</i>. Elizabeth Scott-Baumann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. ix+236.

Montager svøbt i matricepap. En materialearkæologisk undersøgelse af Asger Jorn og Guy Debords Fin de Copenhague

Thomas Hvid Kromann: Montages wrapped in flong. A material-archeological examination of Asger Jorn and Guy Debord’s Fin de Copenhague&#x0D; The article presents and analyses Fin de Copenhague, which was published in 1957 by the Danish painter Asger Jorn and the French theorist and activist Guy Debord. According to legend, this famous avant-garde masterpiece was created in a 24-hour fit of vandalistic creativity and bound in a waste product from the production of newspapers, “flong,” making every copy in this edition of 200 unique. Until recently, Fin de Copenhague has been analyzed within the theoretical framework of the Situationist International (1957–1972), focusing rather on the concept than the materiality of the book. In alignment with a heightened theoretical awareness of the importance of Jorn’s printed matter, the article closely examines Fin de Copenhague, drawing on a combination of art historical and book historical disciplines.The first part of the article is focused on the production, the distribution and the reception of the work. Hereby, the article presents the first thorough analysis of the intertextuality of the work as well as the international network the book circulated within. In the second part of the article, one finds an in-depth analysis of the flong. Until now, no research has focused on the variations of Fin de Copenhague. The author has collected photographic documentation of numerous covers from European and American libraries, copies owned by collectors, and copies sold at auction. In this way, the multiple covers can be studied, including the various aesthetic effects of each individual book cover. Furthermore, a material-archeology of the flong makes it possible to date the single pieces of flong, proving that Fin de Copenhague couldn’t possibly be created within these 24-hours. It is necessary to differentiate between finalizing the idea for the book, the printed work and the published work. In addition to this, the notion of the “social authorship” is underlined, stressing the importance of the printers Verner Permild and Bjørn Rosengreen.

Copyright and Mass Social Authorship

Social authorship ventures involving masses of volunteers like Wikipedia are thought to be a phenomenon enabled by digital technology, presenting new challenges for copyright law. By contrast, the case study explored in this article uncovers copyright issues considered in relation to a 19th-century social authorship precedent: the 70-year process of compiling the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (NED) instigated by the not-for-profit Philological Society in 1858, which involved thousands of casually organized volunteer readers and subeditors. Drawing on extensive original archival research, the article uses the case study as a means of critically reflecting on the claims of existing interdisciplinary literature concerning copyright and ‘authorship’; unlike the claims of the so-called Romanticism thesis, the article argues that copyright law supported an understanding of NED authorship as collaborative and democratic. Further, in uncovering the practical solutions, which lawyers considered in debating issues relating to title and rights clearance, the article uses the 19th-century experience as a vantage point for considering how these issues are approached today; despite the very different context, the copyright problems and solutions debated in the 19th century demonstrate remarkable continuity with those considered in relation to social authorship projects today.

Social Work Authorship

A colleague of mine claims that in addition to journals that accept only well-written manuscripts about quality research, there are journals that accept badly written articles about good research, journals that accept well-written articles about bad research, and others still that accept badly written articles about bad research. In other words, getting a manuscript published does not necessarily signify a major scholarly accomplishment. Yet an individual's scholarly productivity is often summed up as a simple publication count that may influence hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions; funding opportunities; and other professional rewards. Journal quality and author order are also taken into consideration in more nuanced evaluations of scholarly productivity (Geelhoed, Phillips, Fischer, Shpungin, & Gong, 2007; Seipel, 2003). Journal quality may be assessed by impact factor, rejection rate, and circulation size by the more assiduous evaluators of curricula vitae; however, there are limitations to these metrics. For example, although social work scholars are expected to show a degree of loyalty to the social work literature (Seipel, 2003), social work journals in general have notoriously low impact factors, and circulation size is a function of topical and methodological specificity, not just quality. Citation counts, which are now easily available online, provide additional useful information for evaluating scholarly contributions and influence, but they, too, suffer from various limitations that reduce their comparability across individuals, such as size of research community in a topical area and publication data (personal communication with M. O. Howard, Frank A. Daniels Distinguished Professor, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, August 26, 2012). In sum, it is difficult to gauge the quality and impact of social work scholars' contributions, even if information on publication outlet and impact is sought out. Most often it is not sought out; simplistic counts are relied on to sum up scholarly activity. Although the only way to get published in better journals, presumably, is to do superior research and present it well, less honorable options may be used to influence publication counts and author order on manuscripts, such as using status and power to obtain authorship credit or deny it to others (Arthur et al., 2004; Geelhoed et al., 2007; Jones, 1999; Marusi, Bosnjak, & Jeroni, 2011; Street, Rogers, Israel, & Braunack-Mayer, 2010). The quest for long publication lists and sole or first authorship inject zero-sum dynamics into authorship decisions in academic settings, which are characterized by power differentials, competing professional needs, and differences of opinion about appropriate assignment of authorship credit. The socially constructed stakes of publication credits combined with the conditions in which authorship decisions are negotiated make it advisable for social work researchers to establish professionwide ethical standards for authorship assignment. Two goals of such standards are to increase the validity of publication records as indices of scholarly productivity, and thereby enhance their utility for numerous purposes, and to reduce the occurrence of unfairness and coercion in authorship decisions. Developing comprehensive standards applicable to all publishing situations and preventing all abuses of authorship policies are not realistic goals. But social work scholars may be able to reach consensus on a number of acceptable and unacceptable authorship practices and on mechanisms to promote ethical assignment of authorship. This editorial proposes authorship guidelines for social work researchers and challenges those in positions of authority to promote their use. THE PROBLEM Encouragement of collaboration by funders and the numerous specialized skills required in large projects have increased the likelihood that multiple individuals make substantial contributions to the same project and manuscripts. …

Response to Bruce A.Thyer's Comments on Social Work Authorship

Response to Bruce A.Thyer's Comments on Social Work Authorship

Unwarranted Social Work Authorship: A Partial Solution Is at Hand

Professor Natasha K. Bowen (2013) has done an admirable job in bringing to the attention of the social work scholarly community the problem of inappropriate authorships. This problem can arise through a number of possible routes, ranging from benign ignorance to malignant misappropriation. These unethical authorships can occur when a legitimate author overgenerously grants coauthorship to a peer, to someone senior to them, to an academic or administrative supervisor, or to a friend. Unethical authorships can also be granted when a spurious author passively accepts coauthorship when it is unwarranted, perhaps awarded by a junior, by someone currying favor, or a legitimate author believing that having a more distinguished personage appear as a coauthor will enhance the professional patina of his or her paper. In some egregious cases, an overly acquisitive (usually) senior-level social worker (perhaps tenured!) implicitly or explicitly demands authorship of a junior colleague's work. Dr. Bowen proposes some suggested authorship guidelines for social work researchers, guidelines said to be potentially useful by potential authors, journal editors, social work program directors, and students. I think these guidelines are good. And bad. The good aspects are obvious. If adopted they would help mitigate the problem Bowen describes. Let me focus on why I think these are a bad idea, or at least, premature. If we adopt Authorship Guidelines for Social Work Researchers as Bowen suggests, one can readily see similar guidelines emerging for psychologists, nurses, physicians, marriage and family therapists, and so forth. I publish in a variety of different disciplinary journals, and I often coauthor projects with nonsocial work academics and practitioners. Whose guidelines should we follow? The potential for conflicting standards is obvious. Having unique authorship guidelines for social work journals may inadvertently discourage distinguished nonsocial work researchers from introducing their work to our field. Some journals, such as Nature, provide extensive guidelines for determining authorship (see http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/authorship.html), which, among many other features, requires that all authors describe their particular contributions to a given manuscript being submitted. Such existing standards could be considered for potential adoption by social work journals, first, prior to reinventing the wheel. However, a partial solution is already at hand. For reasons that are unclear to me, Dr. Bowen did not cite the current edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association [APA], 2009), a long-existing manual whose guidelines almost all English-language social work journals adhere to (including Social Work Research), and a manual most social work doctoral students learn to follow fairly closely. The APA manual provides more than a standardized method for formatting papers and citing papers--it provides information on legal and ethical aspects of publishing and has something to say on the topic of authorship. Here are some of the statements contained therein that overlap with Bowen's suggested guidelines: Definition of authorship. Individuals should only take authorship credit for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. ... Authorship encompasses, therefore, not only those who do the actual writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study. …

David D. Hall, Ways of Writing: The Practice and Politics of Text-Making in Seventeenth-Century New EnglandWays of Writing: The Practice and Politics of Text-Making in Seventeenth-Century New England. David D. Hall. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Pp. 248.

<i>David D. Hall</i>, Ways of Writing: The Practice and Politics of Text-Making in Seventeenth-Century New England<i>Ways of Writing: The Practice and Politics of Text-Making in Seventeenth-Century New England</i>. David D. Hall. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Pp. 248.

Montaigne's Noble Book: Book History and Biographical Criticism

The editorial process of a book's production—far from a minor material detail in its formation or an anecdotal event of publishing history—constitutes a meaningful aspect of its elaboration as a literary work, as significant as the author's biography. Indeed, book history and descriptive bibliography can lead a biographical approach to a literary work. In this regard, Montaigne's Essais, published in 1580, is a special case in point. The very form of its publication was ingeniously used by Montaigne in a social-climbing strategy, for the ostentatious typographical layout of the title page was intended to demonstrate that it was the book of a gentleman, a “noble book.” This displayed nobility supported Montaigne's moral and pedagogical purpose, it served as the basis of his social authority and literary authorship, and, last but not least, this noble status ensured the success of his book.

From Print versus Manuscript to Sociable Authorship and Mixed Media: A Review of Trends in the Scholarship of Early Modern Publication

AbstractThis review essay outlines current scholarship in literary sociability and social authorship, tracing the development of these trends from earlier scholarly treatments of print culture and manuscript culture during the early modern period. To contextualize this development, it surveys recent scholarship in manuscript studies and the history of the book that takes up the hypothesis that early modern print culture displaced the medieval oral and manuscript culture that preceded it. This hypothesis has been both explored and challenged by such scholars as Elizabeth Eisenstein, Peter Beal, D. F. McKenzie, Arthur Marotti, Harold Love, Margaret Ezell, and David McKitterick. Newer scholarship on early modern sociability by such historians as Peter Clarke, Anna Bryson, and Susan Whyman has been instrumental in shifting literary historical discussion away from the print versus manuscript culture hypothesis to one where print and manuscript represent only two of several media choices available to early modern authors. Following this shift from a focus on media to social conditions of authorship and reading, recent scholarship has explored the role culture plays in shaping media and genre choice in the early modern period.

Agency, social authorship, and the political aura of contemporary poetry

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements This article was prepared for delivery at the conference Authorship and the Turn to Language, Universität Tübingen, Germany, 1–4 December 2005. I am very grateful to the convener of the conference, Professor Barrett Watten, Wayne State University (then a Fulbright professor at Tübingen), for giving the opportunity to attend this conference. Notes Michel Foucault, ‘What is an Author’ in Robert Con Davis and Ronald Schleifer (eds.), translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies (New York: Longman, 1989), pp. 269 & 264. Ibid., p. 264. See Craig Dworkin, Reading the Illegible (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2003) and Juliana Spahr, The Transformation (Berkeley: Atelos, 2007). But also perhaps the text in dissemination – paper, binding, font – the physical look of text, some of which authors may choose, and which are certainly part of what a reader registers and reads. Antony Easthope, Poetry as Discourse (London: Methuen, 1983), p. 42. Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text, translated by Stephen Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), p. 142. Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Marble paper: toward a feminist history of poetry, ML – Modern Language Quarterly, 65.1 (2004), pp. 102–104. Also in Blue Studios: Poetry and its Cultural Work (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006), pp. 102–104. DuPlessis, Blue Studios, pp. 102–104. Barthes, Image, Music, Text, translated by Stephen Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), p. 146. Ibid. Tony Lopez, About Cambridge, http://jacketmagazine.com/20/lopez-about.html [accessed 10 December 2005]. Rodrigo Toscano, Platform (Berkeley: Atelos, 2003). Erín Moure, O Cidadán (Toronto: Anansi, 2002). Caroline Bergvall, Goan Atom (Cambridge, UK: REM Press, 1999). Rosmarie Waldrop, A Key into the Language of America (New York: New Directions, 1994). Anne Blonstein, Scroll, Dusie Issue2, www.dusie.org/blonstein.html [accessed 9 May 2007]. Cecilia Vicuña, Unravelling Words & the Weaving of Water (St. Paul: Graywolf Press, 1992). Carla Harryman, Mirror Play (presented 30 November 2005 in Tübingen, Germany). Ibid., p. 103. See Jean-Jacques Lecercle, The Violence of Language (London: Routledge, 1990). http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/ [accessed 21 November 2005]. Charles Bernstein, The Sophist (Los Angeles: Sun and Moon Press, 1987), p. 44. Harryette Mullen, Muse & Drudge (Philadelphia: Singing Horse Press, 1995), p. 68. Moure, O Cidadán (Toronto: Anansi, 2002), p. 1. See Jena Osman, Syllabus. Documentary Poetics, http://www.temple.edu/creativewriting/faculty/osman/Teaching.htm. Barrett Watten, Progress/Under Erasure (Copenhagen and Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2005), p. 27. Ibid., p. 6.

Recovering Love’s Fugitive: Elizabeth Wilmot and the Oscillations between the Sexual and Textual Body in a Libertine Woman’s Manuscript Poetry

Recovering Love’s Fugitive: Elizabeth Wilmot and the Oscillations between the Sexual and Textual Body in a Libertine Woman’s Manuscript Poetry