reconsidering darnton and others
On Thursday, 9/9 we'll discuss "A New Model for the Study of the Book" by Adams and Barker.
Post your questions and answers regarding this reading by clicking on the "comments" link below.
Histories of Writing, Reading, and Publishing
This is the course website for "Histories of Writing, Reading, and Publishing," a course taught by Dr. Williams in Fall 2004 at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Links
- Syllabus (PDF)
- Online Discussion Schedule
- Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing
3 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
English 4/533
Henri’s questions on Adams and Barker for September 9
1.Adams and Barker propose a model for the study of the book different from the one suggested by Darnton. What are the differences between the two models? Are there any similarities? Is one more valid or potentially productive than the other?
2.Adams and Barker write that the study of books should be recognized as important, but like many “new” disciplines, “it does not fit into a conventional academic framework. It does not apply a specific discipline (such as history or physics) to all events, but all disciplines to specific events, in this case books” (7). Does this statement imply that one model cannot serve all the needs of this interdisciplinary field?
3.What is Adams and Barker’s agenda in this article?
Thomas’s response to Henri’s questions
Adams and Barker’s primary agenda seems to be to create a more inclusive framework for the history of books than Darnton's model. The choice on their part to use the word study instead of history points to their intentions of creating discourse that is more inclusive. The quote from page 7 that Henri excerpted in her second question further leads us to their goal of inclusive interdisciplinary study (e.g., "specific discipline" and "all disciplines"). Although Darnton also acknowledges that the field-the history/study of books-is interdisciplinary, he states early in his article that “interdisciplinarity run riot” stands as a concern for the field and then pleads the case for some structure (110). Darnton’s suggestion is that the field adopt “a general model for analyzing the way books come into being and spread through society” (110). In the conclusion of their article, Adams and Barker comment on the importance of such models when they write that "[i]t is only in theory, in the simple context of a diagram, that these forces can be disentangled from each other," but go on to say that such complex fields of study need to remain flexible(39). Adams and Barker depart from Darnton by proposing a "new model" and then positioning theirs as a "starting point" or "point of departure" for those working in the field rather than a "general" or standardized approach (39).
Despite Adams and Barker's article being a critique of Darnton, their new model is derived from Darnton's in that they have simply inverted Darnton's "communication circuit." Where as Darnton's model places people at the center and positions communication studies as the dominant motivator of the field, Adams and Barker's model locates "[t]he cycle of the book" at the center and situates the text as the dominant motivator of the field. The similarities between the two models are many because they share terminology and categories. The principle difference between the two, however, is that Adams and Barker's model contains a more neutral center or focus because all theoretical lenses focus on the text. In their model, all disciplines are located on the periphery; therefore, allowing and encouraging equal collaboration. Darnton's model privileges the humanities and social sciences by placing them in the middle.
Another important difference between the two models is Adams and Barker's introduction of the "survival" stage. This stage provides a framework for analyzing books past the life of its author. The survival stage, as does the model as a whole, places emphasis on the book as an object rather than the words or ideas of a person.
Yet another important difference between the two models is that Adams and Barker broaden the scope of study by introducing the term "bibliographical document" (13). Adams and Barker argue that the study of the book is at the base level concerned with what happens when texts are duplicated; therefore, the term book which has a tendency to take the student directly to the codex inadvertently limits the research of the field. Here again, their careful choice of terminology encourages an inclusive interdisciplinary field of study.
As to which model is "more valid or potentially productive," I would have to say that in the spirit of Adams and Barker's article both are valid models, but Adams and Barker's is perhaps more productive. I say this primarily because of two reasons: 1) with the text being the center of the model, researchers across the disciplines might be more likely to collaborate, and 2) Adams and Barker's model is inherently more flexible because of the framework provide by the term bibliographical document and the absence of the communication framework.
Post a Comment
<< Home