Exploring Literary Apps from a Theoretical Perspective

For my research paper, I plan on writing about the intersection of editorial theory and literary apps. Since my time as an undergraduate, I’ve had a keen interest in editorial theory, particularly the writings of Jerome McGann. In The Textual Condition, McGann theorizes that “producing editions is one of the ways we produce literary meanings” (33, 1991). In this work, McGann is referring to printed scholarly editions, but I think the concept of an “edition” can be extended to literary apps, which, despite their diversity, demonstrate the app creator’s/editor’s interpretations and readings of the text that they’ve adapted to a digital format.

I’m fascinated by the wide range of apps that are offered, from those that resemble hyper-scholarly editions, offering texts with extensive critical material and additional multimedia (like Touch Press' The Waste Land app that we examined in class or the Folger Luminary Shakespeare Apps) to those that are less concerned with scholarly material and feature images and sound to create an interactive experience. Examples of the later that I have discovered so far include the iClassics Collection and Dave Morris’ adaptation of Frankenstein.

A screenshot of Dave Morris' adaptation of Frankenstein (Inkle, http://www.inklestudios.com)

As Rowberry notes, “Although all share similar features, these apps are heterogeneous and approach their source texts from a variety of angles…The literary app offers a multimodal approximation of the original work rather than a reading text” (15, 2015). I find this statement interesting for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I agree with Rowberry that literary apps in their form and content are incredibly diverse. The literary apps that I have explored seem to blend different formats, borrowing elements from e-books, scholarly editions, audiobooks, and even video games. The addition of multimedia elements, especially sound and image, seems to be common among all types of literary apps. With this in mind, is it possible to define the literary app as a genre?

The second point that I find interesting is that Rowberry seems to suggest that because literary apps are primarily concerned with this “multimodality” (16, 2015), they do not privilege a “reading text” (15, 2015). This is where I disagree with Rowberry. I think there are certain literary apps that do privilege a reading text, and that embody a particular reading or interpretation of the texts they adapt.

Some questions that I think are worth considering: When adapting a literary text to an app format, how much of the original narrative is diminished (or amplified)? Is the original author's intent lost? And how significant is the lack or addition of (critical) paratext? How does the addition of image and sound affect the reading experience?

With a foundation in editorial theory, I plan on analyzing and close reading different types of literary apps. My goal is to explore and perhaps even reach an understanding of the editorial choices that were made during the development of these apps, and whether these decisions and selection criteria have roots in a theoretical approach. 

References

McGann, Jerome J. The Textual Condition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Rowberry, Simon Peter. “Ebookness.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (2015): 1-18.