Introduction : Crossing Digital Thresholds on the Paratextual Tightrope

Examining Paratextual

Theory and its

Applications in Digital

Culture

Nadine Desrochers

Université de Montréal, Canada

Daniel Apollon

University of Bergen, Norway

A volume in the Advances in Human and Social Aspects of Technology (AHSAT) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue

Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: cust@igi-global.com Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2014 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com. Examining paratextual theory and its applications in digital culture / Nadine Desrochers and Daniel Apollon, editors.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4666-6002-1 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-6003-8 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-6005-2 (print & per-petual access) 1. Content analysis (Communication) 2. Digital media. 3. Paratext. 4. Authorship. 5. Genette, Gérard, 1930---Influence. I. Desrochers, Nadine, 1971- editor of compilation. II. Apollon, Daniel, 1951- editor of compilation. P93.E93 2014

401’.4--dc23

2014007795

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Human and Social Aspects of Technology (AHSAT) (ISSN: 2328-1316; eISSN: 2328-1324)

xxix

Introduction



CROSSING DIGITAL THRESHOLDS ON THE PARATEXTUAL TIGHTROPE

Mostreaders,astheyencountertheselines,wouldagreethattheyarereadingtext.Thosefamiliarwith theworksofFrenchtheoristGérardGenettemayaddthattheyare,infact,readingparatext. AlthoughGenettehadintroducedtheconceptofparatextinPalimpsestes,publishedin1981,andin other,shorterworks,hisworkSeuils(“Thresholds”)istheseminaltextpertainingtothistheory.Since itspublicationin1987,followedbypartial(1991)andintegral(1997)translations,Genette’sparatextual theoryhasbeensummarizednumeroustimes.Inthepagesofthisbookalone,authorsfromvarious disciplineswillpresenttheirtakeontheframeworkandciteotherscholarsandthinkerswhohavedone thesame,therebyillustratingthemultiplicityofapproachessupportedbywhatappearstobe,atfirst glance,arelativelystraightforwardproposition. Letuslikewisesummarize,albeitbriefly.Thebasicpremiseisasfollows:inthepublishedbook,the text,thenarrative,thecoreofthework,doesnotstandalone.Infact,itcannot.Anassemblageofother elementsisrequiredto“makepresent”thetext,torenderitapprehensibletothereaderandsuitablefor both“reception”and“consumption”(Genette,1997,p.1).Fromtheoutset,Genettelistedthefollowing paratextualelements:“anauthor’sname,atitle,apreface,illustrations”(p.1);insodoing,heprovided commonplacereferences,establishingjusthowfamiliarwereadersalreadywerewiththeparatext,even thoughithadnotyetbeentheorizedassuchpriortohiswork. Webegin,then,withGenette’s(1997)basicdefinition:“Forus,accordingly,theparatextiswhat enablesatexttobecomeabookandtobeofferedassuchtoitsreadersandmoregenerally,tothepublic... an‘undefinedzone’betweentheinsideandtheoutside”(pp.1–2).Togettothetext,thereadermust crossathreshold;inthebook,thatthresholdistheparatext.ItshouldbenotedherethatGenette,inthe textandinanaccompanyingfootnote,gavecredittootherthinkersandtheorists(Duchet,Compagnon, Lejeune)whoinspiredorusedthe“threshold,”“fringe,”or“zone”metaphors.

A subset of concepts is also essential for the reader’s understanding of paratextual theory. The paratext,inGenette’s(1997)framework,ispresentedintwodistinctcategories.Theperitextisthe paratextcontainedwithinthebook;itselementsareconstitutiveoftheobject.Examplesincludethe title,footnotes,epigraphs,tablesofcontent.Theepitextaccompaniesthetextfromadistance;Genette (1997)perceiveditastakingshapeinmediatedevents(suchasinterviewswiththeauthor)orthrough “privatecommunication(letters,diaries,andothers)”(p.5).Whatensuescanbeseenasthe“E=mc2_” ofliterarystudies:“paratext=peritext+epitext”(p.5).

Theimpetusforthisbookliesinthefollowingquestion:whyisatheorythatissodeeplyanchored inbookcultureandaimedatexplainingthemechanismsoftheprintedworksoinexorablyappealingto scholarsanddesignersfromvariousdisciplinesandappliedtoawiderangeofobjectsthatseemingly sharesolittlewiththetraditionalcodex? Ordothey? Thisiswherecontext,theinevitablebackdroptohistorical,social,andtechnologicalshifts,makes itsthunderingentrance.

Continuity and Disruption in Digital Culture

Astexts,or,lessspecifically,“contents,”havebecomedigitalandincreasinglyborn-digitalordigital only,questionshavearisenaboutthenatureandimplicationsofwhatmayconvenientlybetermeda doubletransitionalsituation,thatis,thetransitionoftextualandaudiovisualcontenttodigitalformats. Thismostrecentpermutation,whichhasbeenreferredtoasthedigitalturn,shift,ageorera(notto mentionrevolution)followsthreeprevious,andcommonlyacknowledged,intellectualandtechnological revolutions:theshiftfromoralliteracytowriting,theinventionoftheprintingpress,andtheadoptionand distributionofpre-Internetmassmedia,dominatedbytelevision.Itisbothremarkableandchallenging thatthedigitaltransitionhastakenlittlemorethanthreedecades,averyshortintervalinthelonghistory ofhumanculture.Thisimpliesthatanyoneendeavoringtoexploreandinterprethowdigitalcontentis conceived,produced,accessedandreusedindigitalenvironmentsneedstotakeintoaccountthelackof historicaldistancefromthephenomenaobservedwhichmaycloudtheirintellectualobjectivitytowards theobjectofstudy. Thatsaid,beingimmersed,asbothusersandobservers,inthedigitalflowoftransientbitswhile tryingtomakesenseofhowmeaningisconstructedandtransmitteddoesnotnecessarilymeanbeing nearlysubmergedwhiledesperatelyhangingontoarunawayraft(toechoDoherty’s(2014)water-based analogies,discussedlaterinthistext).Indeed,thedigitalscientistenjoystherelativeprivilegeofbeing abletostudywithsomeserenityandin vivoaspectsofwhatmaywellconstitutearadicalrevolutionin thehistoryofthe“technologiesoftheintellect”tociteJackGoody’sneologism(seeGoody,1999,2000, n.d.).Goodyusestheexpression“technologiesoftheintellect”todefinethenatureofwritingandofthe literatemind,emphasizingthefundamentaldifferenceinmodesofrepresentationandsocialinteraction inpre-literate,oralculturesascomparedtoliteratecultures(seeGoody&Watt,1963).Surprisingly, Goodyhasnot,inhisabundantscientificproduction,definedthenotionof“technologiesoftheintellect,” somethingforwhichhehasoccasionallybeencriticized(Harris,2009,p.71).Wethink,however,that suchcriticismispartiallyunjustified.Goody’sreluctancetoofferpreciseelucidationsofthisexpression seemsfullypremeditated,sinceheusesitchieflyasarhetoricaltoolfirsttodrawattentiontowhathe considersconstitutesthenatureofthefundamentalepistemicinnovationassociatedwiththeadoption ofwriting—theliteratemindandliteracy—and,second,todrawalinefromthisepistemicinnovation tocorrespondingpatternsofsocialinteraction. BuildingonGoody’sprogramforexploringtheinnovativeimplicationsofliteracy,analystsofthe bewilderingvarietyofcontemporarydigitalinscriptionalpracticesshouldnotproceedasifmanwere “imprisonedbytheconceptshehasproducedandhencefail[ed]toaccountforthegenerativeaspects ofhisculture”(Goody,1995,p.9).Inthiscontext,itiscrucialtonotethattheterm“generative”does notimplythattheadventofanewtechnology(e.g.,networkedinformationtechnologies)fullycancels orreplacesformerspeech-basedorgesturaltechnologiesandliteracies,northatthedigitalshift,more

xxxi thantheprintrevolution(orforthatmattertheadventofthewrittenform)weretheresultofabrupt timewarpsinthehistoryofhumankind,apttorelegateformertoolsandfunctionstooblivion.Rather, theecologyofnewtechnologiesoftheintellectmaybethoughtofasacomplex,potentiallymetastable blendmixingcontinuousaspectsinheritedfrompastperiods(suchasdevices,functions,andtactics) withdisruptiveaspects(alsodevices,functions,andtactics)withlittleornoobviousrootsinearlier technologies.Digitalculture’sblendofoldandnewcharacteristics,similartootherculturalvariations inhumansocieties,forbidsthescholar“toputforwardasimple,technologicallydeterminedsequence ofcauseandeffect,”since“therearetoomanyeddiesandcurrentsintheaffairsofmentojustifya monocausalexplanationofaunilinealkind”(Goody,1995,p.10). Thecontinuitydimensionmeansthat,beingbuiltonanew-oldliteracy,digitalcultureisboundto integrateandrecycleinheritedgoodsandfunctionsinverydiverse,andnotalwaysobvious,ways;forthe disruptivedimensionmakesitinevitablethatanynewliteracywillgenerate,overtime,unprecedented artifactsandtechniques,withnoobviousprefigurationinearlierliteracies.Oneshouldheedthefact, however,thatthedistinctionbetween“continuous”and“disruptive”isbynomeansdichotomous.The appearance,structure,andevencorefunctionalitiesoftraditionalartifactsmaymigrateintoadigital mediumand,overthecourseoftimeandingivencontextsorthroughgivenusages,acquirenew,unforeseen functions.Similarly,disruptiveartifactsmayovertimeacquirewhatcouldbeperceivedastraditional functions.Thisintricatesynergyofoldandnewrequiresuserstodevelopnewmeta-competencesbased on revised or reinvented cognitive strategies; it also requires new epistemological frames. All this entailsnovelwaysoflearningandengagingwithculturalproducts,asancestraldevices(suchasthe title,thepage,thetableofcontents,ortheindex,touseparatextualexamples)andnoveldigitalartifacts flowtogetherintheminds,practices,andlivesofindividualsthroughayet-to-be-exploredprocessof instrumentalgenesis(Rabardel,1995). Yet,dowenotusesimilarstrategies,almostinstinctively,asweadapttonewsignalsandsigns?Or doweofferafutilebutreassuringresistancetochangebyseekingrefugeinfamiliarframesofreference, bethey“desktops,”“folders,”or“pages”?Wemayaskwhetherourcollectivememoryassociatesthe logoinsertspoppingupanddisappearingwithinsecondsonourfavoriteTVchannelswiththewonderful illuminationsofthe15thcenturymanuscriptmasterpieceTrès Riches HeuresonexhibitattheMusée CondéinChantilly.Doweperceivetheboldfontsusedtohighlightthetitleofablogentryasreminiscent oftheOldEgyptiancartouchesusedtohighlightroyalnames?Mightthestatusbarofourfavorite computergameevokeinustheimageofsomeobscurebas-reliefinscriptioninamedievalcathedral? Somewheredeepinourminds,thespatiallyconstrainedstructureofatweetisperhapsakintothelaconic butamorousmessageoftheOldNorseRunicrunepinne:“ArnepriestwantsInga!”(DigitaltMuseum, n.d.);andtheremaybeafunctionalanalogybetweenIMDblistingsandthepapacy’sIndex Librorum

Prohibitorum(List of Prohibited Books,abolishedin1966),otherthanintheirrespectiveillustrations

ofourpropensityforassembling,organizing,anddistributinginformationinlistform.

Becauseofthepervasivenatureofthedigitalrevolution,theminglingofcontinuityelements(suchas inheritednarrativeorparatextualdevicesandstrategieswithclearrootsinprintculture)anddisruptive elements (such as access functions performed by software agents in Wikipedia, non-human poetry generators,orAI-drivenconversationalmachines)augursadifferentkindofliteracy.Thismingling provokesacomplexifiedversion,ratherthanarepetition,ofwhatWalterJ.Ongexpoundedinhisseminal studyofresidualoralityinwrittenculture:theproductivecoexistenceofa“deeplyinteriorizedliteracy andmoreorlessresiduallyoralstatesofconsciousness”;inotherwords,acultureofheterogeneous

elements(Ong,2002,p.29).ThedifferencebetweenthestateofthingsdescribedbyOngandGoody andthepresentsituation,atthedigitalturn,isthatthelayeringandentanglementofvariousstrandsof pre-literateandliteratemodesofcommunicationandknowledgeareofahigherorderofmagnitude.As formulatedbyTerjeHillesundandClaireBélisle(2014),

the long-term consequences of the convergence of computer and network technologies into a new text medium are not at all obvious, but the consequences are far-reaching and penetrating in more than geographical terms and degrees of diffusion. The writing system itself, meaning the characters and numbers, is as yet not dissimilar from the systems used in manuscripts and print publications. However, there are significant differences in how digital texts are created and stored and how they are distributed and presented to the reader, and as Roger Chartier (1995) points out, new text features will inevitably change our conception of text, intellectual habits, and ways of reading, thus creating an entirely new framework for digital text editions. (p.117)

Alongthesamelines,aswelookbackattherapidgrowthanddisseminationofnetworkeddigital mediaandimaginepossiblefutures,wefindrichimplicationsinPeterShillingsburg’s(2006)concise diagnosisofouracademicandpracticalchallenges:“Weneedmorepeoplethinkingdeeplyaboutways inwhichtextstranslatedintonewmediumsloseoldfunctionsastheyacquirenewfunctionsandhow interactionswithtextsintheelectronicworlddifferfrominteractionswithprinteditions”(p.145). Yet,whilefullyendorsingShillingsburg’sstatement,wemayexpandthescopeofhisprogramby consideringthreeadditionalperspectives.First,assuggestedearlier,wemayneedtorealizethatkey characteristicsoftheconfigurationanddynamicsofdigitalcontentmaylackprefigurationintheGutenberg era.Ifsuchisthecase,thentheterms“translation,”“transfer,”or“reuse”mayfailtofullyaddressthe disruptiveandquiteoftenperplexingcharacteristicsofcontemporarydigitalculture.Examiningdigital contentinuse,in situandin vivomay,asaconsequence,requireustoassumethatnewfunctions,newkinds ofinteractions,andnewvectorsofcontentare,infact,endemictodigitalcultureand,asaconsequence, canonlybestudiedandinterpretedintheirimmediatetechnological,social,andculturalenvironments. Thisappliesparticularlytohighlytransient,dynamic,remixed,ormashed-updigitalproducts. Second,wemayneedtofullyprocessthefactthattheprintera’sdefinitionof“text”asinscribedlines ofcharacters,withorwithoutillustrations,onpaperoronscreen,doesnotdojusticetotheplethoraof inscriptionalformsandtheirintricatedigitalchoreography.Theterm“text,”oranynewtermchosen toreplaceitinthedigitalcontext,shouldalsoaddressarapidlychangingandevolvingpopulationof dynamicobjectsperformingvariouswell-knownandlesswell-knownfunctionsintheconstruction ofmeaning.Theexpandednotionoftextappliesparticularlytocomputergamesandvariouscultural productsthatincludehighlyfluid,haptic,kinetic,orbiosensoryaspects.Thedigital“object,”although itisinscribedincode,callsforarethinkingoftheconceptof“text.” Thirdandlast,Shillingsburg’snotionof“text”(understoodasthisexpandedconcept)needstobe somehowfreedfromassumptionsaboutthecentralityandeventhenecessaryexistenceofanauthoritative primarycorecontent(e.g.,theactualYouTubevideodisplayed)thatmaybeanalyzedseparatelyfromallthe surrounding,introductory,andinfiltratingdevices.ToplayonJacquesDerrida’snotionof“decentering,” suchdecenteringmayapplynotonlytothedisplacementanddestabilizationoftheAuthor,asheralded bytheFrenchNouvelleCritique,butmorefundamentallytothedestabilizationofthetextualarchitecture, aruptureintheBarthesianviewofthetextasawovencloth(Barthes,1977,p.159).

xxxiii

Thatbeingsaid,itisessentialtoreiteratethatallisnotrupture;indigitalculture,centralistictextuality “asweknewit”canpersist,attimesquiteadamantlyso,butitcoexistswithhighlydecentralized, fragmentary,orhyperfluidprocesses.

The Digital “Para”/“Text” Tug of War

Wethereforebegintoseehowatheorybasedonthebookcanofferawindowintothedigitalrealm; notbecausetheobject(ofconsumption,ofstudy)hasnotchanged,butpreciselybecause,whileithas changed,itstillneedstobeapprehended,tobe“madepresent,”tobe“steppedinto.”Genette’stheoryhas oftenbeencalledtext-centric,book-centric,orprint-centric,andofcourse,atinceptionitwas,despite thefactthatGenettehimselfforesawthepossibilityofexploringtheparatextualapparatusofothertypes ofculturalartifacts,suchasvisualartormusic(1997,p.407). Thismayseemincongruousgiventhetextualsemanticsembeddedinthetheory’sveryname,and onemightarguethatthetransferofthetheorytoelectronicliteratureisamorenaturalone.Eventhen, however,thegapwidensuponcloseinvestigation.AsBirkeandChrist(2013)pointout,Web-based digitalobjectsexistinacontextwherethe“‘thresholds’,paratextualelementsthatnegotiatethespace betweentextandcontext,becomeincreasinglydifficulttoisolateandidentify”(p.80).Theytherefore arguethattheremaybeimportantlimitationstothis“media-specific”(i.e.,book-specific)(Birke&Christ, 2013,p.81)theoryinthedigitalera,particularlyforborn-digitalworks;thatbeingsaid,theyalsoposit thatcertainaspectsofparatextualtheorymayberetainedinordertocomparehowdigitalformatsoffer variousmodesofdeparturefromtheirprintedcounterpartsorpredecessors(Birke&Christ,2013,p.81). Needlesstosay,academiaandpopularculturehavemovedwellbeyondtheprinted-text-to-e-text comparison.Text,film,music,games,websites,programminglanguages,anddigitalobjectsofevery shapeandtexturehavebeengazedatthroughtheparatextuallensand,onmanyoccasions,studied preciselyfortheirparatextualcontent.Infact,thecurrentapplicationsofthetheorymayhavemovedit from“text-centric”oreven“core-centric”to“threshold-centric.”AsBlaiseCroninwritesinhisforeword tothisbook,“theparatextmayitselfbecomethestory”;or,astheChronicle of Higher Educationrecently proclaimed,“TheParatext’stheThing”(Doherty,2014).

Interestingly,Genettedisavowedthisperspective,andquitestronglyso;thelastpageofSeuilswarns allconcernedto“watch out for the paratext!”(italicsintheoriginal;Genette,1997,p.410).Inhisview, itwouldbe“unfortunate”toreplacewhathecalls“someidoloftheclosedText”with“anewandeven morehollowfetish:theparatext.”Hedescribestheparatextasan“assistant,”an“accessory,”“asilly show”whenseparatedfromitscoretext.AccordingtoGenette(1997),“thediscourseontheparatext mustneverforgetthatitbearsonadiscoursethatbearsonadiscourse,andthatthemeaningofitsobject dependsontheobjectofthismeaning,whichisyetanothermeaning”(p.410). Despitethiswarning,andasshouldbeevidentbynow,theparatext,bygaininginmomentum,may havelostits“boundary”status—its“para”status.Thisbookexploresdigitalculture’spossibleshiftin focusfromwhatThomasDoherty(2014)hasrecentlyandwrylycalled“thetextastheholyofholies”to aneco-systemofparatextualphenomenawhirlinginthe“slipstream”ofbits.DohertyinvokesGenette’s viewthat“theparatextisneitherontheinteriornorontheexterior:itisboth;itisonthethreshold;and itisonthisverysitethatwemuststudyit,becauseessentially,perhaps,its being depends upon its site” (italicsintheoriginal;GenetteascitedbyRichardMackseyinhisForewordtoParatexts,1997,p.xvii). Dohertythenarguesthatifthedistinctionbetween“core”and“periphery”isnotfullytenableinthebook

world,itisimmeasurablylesstenableindigitalculture.Sountenableissuchadistinctionthatonemay, asDohertyandseveralauthorsinthisbookboldlydo,theorizethatthewhirlsandeddiesofflowing paratextualbitshavereplacedthe“text,”the“core,”asthefocalpoint.Thisappearsasproblematicto DohertyasitwastoGenette,albeitfordifferentreasons.Theparatext,Doherty(2014)claims,iswhat oneneedstowadethroughtogettothe“goodstuff”thatmakesthecontent,thediscourse,thetelevision show“matter.”

The paratext is the satellite debris orbiting and radiating out from the core text: what the post-telecast chatfest Talking Dead is to The Walking Dead, what Madonna-vs.-Lady Gaga mashups are to the original music videos, what Wolverine action figures are to the X-Men franchise—what all the buzzing swarms of trailers, teasers, bloopers, tweets, swag, webisodes, podcasts, chat rooms, fanzines, geek conventions, DVD extras, synergistic tie-ins, and branded merchandise, in all their infinite varieties, are to the mother ship.(Doherty,2014)

Thisbookdoesnotseektoresolvethetensionsortobethedefinitiveguideonparatextualtheoryin thedigitalage;suchapretensionwouldimplythatthetheoryisfixed,unmoving,unabletobeadapted totheever-evolvingformsandformatsofhumankind’stranscriptionandrecordingofideas.Thatnotion wouldbecontrarytoGenette’s(1997)viewpoint:

The general history of the paratext, punctuated by the stages of a technological evolution that supplies it with means and opportunities, would no doubt be the history of those ceaseless phenomena of sliding, substitution, compensation, and innovation which ensure, with the passing centuries, the continuation and to some extent the development of the paratext’s efficacy. (p.14)

Rather,thisbookconfirmsthattheparatextualevolutionanditsstudyarequitestronglyrootedinthe currentacademiclandscape,andthatthetaxonomyitpresentsfortheprintedbookcanbeoperationalized forthestudyofdigitalobjects.ItalsoconfirmsthatparatextualtheorysupportswhatweFrenchspeakers wouldcalla“décloisonnement,”adecompartmentalizationofthedisciplines,whichcanonlybebeneficial atatimewhenthedigitalobjecthasjustbeguntosuggestthemanyshapesitmighttakeinyearstocome. Indeed,thequestionisnotwhetherGenette’stheoryisusefulbeyondthestudyoftheprintedbook, theprintindustry,andtheoft-debatednotionof“authorship”—tothat,thiscollectiveworkanswersa resoundingYes.Thequestionisrathertoponderhow,astheobjectsmorph,meshtogether,andsurprise us,thetheoryitselfwillcontinuetoevolve.Thisbookisanexploration,ofcourse,butalsoatestimony tothewilloftoday’sscholarstoprovide,withacompellingandjustifiedrespectforaframeworkborn inapre-Internetandliterarycontext,thetheoreticalportalswecanusetoengageinacommondialogue abouttheelementsthatshapeourthoughtsandideasintodynamicdigitalobjects.Whilescholarsmay notalwaysagreeonthenomenclatureorontheapplicationsofthetheory,theunderlyingresolveofthe contributorstothisbookseemstobethatGenette’sinitialpremisestillstands:something,herecalled “paratext,”isrequiredtomakeourthoughtsandideas“present,”toshapethemintoinscribed,accessible, apprehensible,butalsoclassifiable,analyzable(nottomentionenjoyable)objects.

xxxv

The Seductive Power of Genette’s Paratext

Whyistheconceptofparatextstillsorelevanttoday,insuchabroadrangeofdisciplinesandforsucha widearrayofobjects?Anddespiteeffortstomovetowardsbroadersemanticlabels,suchas“paracontent” (Bhaskar,2011),whydoscholarsconstantlyreferbackandwithdeferencetoGenette,albeit,attimes, todiscardhisstrongestwarnings? Thechaptersofthiscollectiveworkofferliteraturereviewsthatprovidethereaderwithanoverview oftheapplicationsofGenette’stheoryinvariousdisciplines—aninfluencefurthermeasuredthrough themetricsprovidedbyFredrikÅströminhischapter,“TheContextofParatext:ABibliometricStudy oftheCitationContextsofGérardGenette’sTexts”.Theseductivepoweroftheframeworkendures,no matterwhattheobjectofstudyandhoweverbroadlyitstenetsmaybeinterpreted.Asforthecontributors themselves,theysubmitGenette’stheorytoeverythingfromconceptualandbroad-strokeapplications tominutescrutinyandreconceptualizationscompletewithpropositionsforupdatedtaxonomies.Taken asawhole,thisbooksynthesizestheexistingliteratureonthesubject;needlesstosay,italso,de facto, addstothisliterature. Judgingbytheusesofthetheorymadeinboththechaptersofthisbookandthetextsreferencedby itsauthors,theappealoftheparatextualviewpointseemstolieincertainkeyfactors.Weshalltherefore aimtodistillwhat,intheroottext,seemtobethefocalpointsthatbringcoherencetoalandscapeshaped fromsomanyperspectives. First,thereisthefactthattheessenceofGenette’sworkParatextsiscontained,inhighlyconcentrated butextremelyreadableform,initsintroduction.Indeed,thisintroductionmakessuchstrongandimportant contributionstotheworldofknowledgethatitwasimportedintotheEnglishlanguageasastandalone pieceunderthepragmatictitle“IntroductiontotheParatext”(Genette,1991)sixyearsbeforeadifferent translatorpresentedtheEnglish-languagecommunitywithacompleteversionofthework,underthe revisedtitleParatexts: Thresholds of Interpretation(Genette,1997).Akeeneyewillnoticethedistinct difference between the eloquent, albeit laconic, Seuils (literally, “thresholds”) and the explanatory elementsoftheEnglishtitle.Thismayhavebeensaidbefore,butifithas,itbearsrepeating.InEnglish, thetitlefeaturesthenameoftheproposedconcept,“paratexts,”madepluralalthoughGenettehimself keepsitsingular:theproposed“thresholds”maybenumerous,buthis“paratext”isonecomplexwhole composedofsingularelements.TheEnglishreaderthenencounterstheterm“thresholds”andwithit boththenotionofcrossingintosomethingandtheslightlyunnervingsensethatthesedevicescreate “thepossibilityofsteppinginsideorturningback”(Genette,1997,p.2)fromatextualspace.Finally, thetranslatedtitlepositionstheparatextasatoolappealingtothereader’sjudgmentandsubjectivity. Andso,throughfivelittlewordsintwolanguages,theparatextbeginsitswork. Intheintroduction,whichthereaderwillfindcitedfrequentlyinthisbookandelsewhere,Genettelays downthemainaspectsofthetheory,notonlyinitstenets,butalsoinitsmostimportantramifications. Wewilllookhereatsomeofthekeypointsthathavecapturedtheattentionofthosewho,withus,have chosentopursuethis“examination”ofparatextindigitalculture. Withinafewpages,Genetteproposesaconcisemodel,reminiscentofjournalism’sFiveW’s,for theanalysisoftheparatext.Thedefinitionofaparatextualelementisdependentontheanswerstothe followingquestions:where,when,how,fromwhom,towhom,andtodowhat(Genette,1997).This establishesthataparatextualanalysisshouldbebasedonthefollowingdimensions:location(hencethe peritext/epitextdivide),temporality(whenwasitcreated),substance(onemightsayformat,butGenette limitshimselftotext),communication(seenaspragmaticintherelationshipitcreatesbetweensender

andaddressee),andfunction(alsopragmatic;pp.4–13).Thisframeworkisenticinglystraightforward, tosaytheleast,andwillbeusedasastartingpointforsomechaptersinthisbook. Eachindividualdimensionoffersaplethoraofavenuesforthestudyofdigitalobjects.Location, ofcourse,isattheheartofmuchdebate.Despitethetraditionalorprint-inspiredlexiconof“pages,” “e-publishing,”and“citations,”hypertextuality,sourcecodes,andWeb-baseddigitalcontenthaverendered theperitext/epitextdichotomyhighlyconjectural.Whatis“location”inanobjectwhoseverymateriality isdebated?Letthereaderbeawarethatthereisnoconsensusinthisbook.Rather,theepitext/peritext relationshipisquestioned,resolvedbysome,andmadeobsoletebyothers;andsothelackofhistorical distancechallengesus,evenasitenrichesourconversations. Asparatextuallocationchangesinnature,so,too,doestemporality.Genette(1997)remindsusthat additionsandomissionsinvariouseditionsofprintedbookscanbring“intermittent”lifetocertain paratextualelements(p.6);inFrench,Genette(1987,p.12)characterizestheparatext’sdurationas“à éclipses”,animagetranslatedas“subjecttoeclipse”byMaclean(Genette,1991,p.265),butwhich disappearsinLewin’s1997translation.Thisimageseemsextremelywellsuitedtodigitalculture,where “refreshing”apageor“overwriting”adocumentcan,intheblinkofaneye,createeclipticcyclesof presenceandabsence.Writinginthemid-90saboutearlyonlinepracticesandcommunities,Brown andDuguid(1996)highlightedtheintrinsicallysocialandfluidaspectsofWeb-baseddocuments.This “fluidity”isperhaps,attimes,aeuphemismfortheephemeral,changing,orevenvolatilenatureofthe digitalworld,wheresomuchiscreated,butsomuchislost,despitearchivaleffortssuchastheWayback Machineorparatextualmessageshiddeninthesourcecodeandthatsometimesattesttochanges,edits, andupdates.Still,“404”and“410”messageshavebecomenewparatextualconventions.Creationand destructionbothhavetheirparatextindigitalculture. The“substantialstatus”(Genette,1997,p.7)isequallyascomplexinthedigitalrealm.“Text,” “content,”“core,”“code,”“narrative,”“index,”“filestructure,”“filename”—mostifnotallthebuilding blocksofthedigitalobjectwillbegivenordeniedparatextualstatusinthisbook.Thetext/paratext relationshiphasbeenmarredbyboththesourcecodeconundrumandthenewmeaningof“information architecture”—thatmuchisundeniable.Thismarredrelationshipcreatesanambiguity(nottomention adivergenceofopinions)whentryingtodefinewhat,infact,thedigitalparatextismadeof;orsimply put,what,inthedigitalrealm,istheparatext’s“substance.” ThisspeaksdirectlytothefirstofGenette’spragmaticconsiderationsandoneoftheutmostimportance: whoemits,andwhosanctions,theparatext?Genette(1997)statesthattheparatextmayhaveavariety ofsenders,butthebottomlineisthat“[b]ydefinition,somethingisnotaparatextunlesstheauthoror oneofhisassociatesacceptsresponsibilityforit,althoughthedegreeofresponsibilitymayvary”(p.9). Thisleadstotwoquestionsthathauntthisbook:howcanauthorshipinthedigitalagebedefinedwhen itseemstositattheconfluenceoforiginalcontent,user-generatedcontent,mashups,andpoaching? Andwhatofthesourcecode,templates,andplatforminterfaces,adoptedbutnotdesignedbythesender, uncontrollableinmanyregards,yetinherentlylinkedtotheapprehensionoftheobject?Cantheybe perceivedandstudiedasparatext,ifonlyonthebasisoftheirspatialrelationshiptothetext? Receptioncausessimilarissues.Genette(1997)makesadistinctionbetweenparatextualelements addressedtothegeneralpublic(atitle,announcingabook)andthoseaddressedtopeoplewhoengage withthebook(thepreface,forexample)(p.9).Again,indigitalculture,theconceptofparatextbecomes stretchedbeyonditsprintedlimits,withelements“hidden”inthesourcecodeandaccessgranted(or denied) through passwords and digital rights management technologies. An increasing number of hiddensoftwareagentsareperforminganever-expandingarrayofcontenttransformations,irrespective

xxxvii oftheoriginalownersandusersofthatcontent,andinvadingthedomainsofdecisionandreasoning, therebyexacerbatingthisparatextualexpansion.Hapticandsensorialconsiderationsinthereception andconsumptionofcertaindigitalobjectsalsomarkadeparturefromthephysicalexperienceofthe look,feel,touch,and,ofcourse,smelloftheprintedbook. Finally,Genette(1997)introducestheall-encompassingfunctionalaspectoftheparatext,lodged, primarily,inits“illocutionaryforce”(p.10).Theparatextactsuponthereaderanduponthework.It is“theprivilegedplaceofapragmaticsandastrategy,ofaninfluenceonthepublic”(Genette,1997, p.2).Indeed,itshapesbothourperceptionandourunderstandingoftheobjectit“makespresent,”and itcandosoinmanyways.Genette(1997,pp.11-12)providesalistwhichendsbyendowingcertain paratextualelementswiththe“powerlogicianscallperformative—thatis,theabilitytoperformwhatthey describe.”Genette(1997,p.11)givesthetraditionalexampleofadedication.However,oncemore,the disruptiveaspectofdigitaltoolsishighlightedbythisfunction.Markuplanguagesprescribeandperform. Foldersandfilesorganize,structure,andclassify.URLsdesignate.Metadatadescribe.Measuringthose functionsandtheirtransmedialpotentialagainsttheillocutionaryforceoftraditionalelementssuchas titlesorgenredesignationswillalsobeinvestigatedwithinthepagesofthisbook. Inalittlemorethan15pages(ofparatext,noless),Genette(1997)summarizesanoutlookthathas spawnedcountlessotherpages(andtheirownparatext,ofcourse).Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation is,initsentirety,over400pageslong;andalthoughitsintroductionisbyfarthemostcitedexcerptin thiscollectivework,thevariousauthorswilltakethereaderthroughtherestofitscontent,which,like itsintroduction,hastherarequalityofbeingimminentlyaccessible,evenforthosewhodonothavea literarybackground.Paratextsfurtherindulgesourcommonpropensity,mentionedabove,forlistsand classifications(itschaptersbearnameslike“Titles,”“Epigraphs,”or“TheFunctionsoftheOriginal Preface”)andtheelementsGenetteanalyzesarepresentedin“theorderinwhichoneusuallymeetsthe messages[his]studyexplores”(p.3).Inshort,Genettecreatestaxonomicorderintheparatextualworld. Thishasnotescapedtheattentionofclassificationscholars:Paling(2002)writesthat“[t]hetableof contentsfromParatextsreadslikealistofbibliographicelements”(p.140)andAndersen(2002)proposes touseGenette’stheory,alongwithconceptsfromGraciaandShillingsburg,tostudythe“bibliographic recordastext”(p.39). Asnotedearlier,Genetteisobviouslywellawareoftheunstablestatusofparatextualelements,which, inhisownwords,“mayappearatanytime”orseetheiruserevoked,namelythrough“theerodingeffect oftime”(p.6).Hefurtherreferstohisworkasaninventory,assembled“inapreliminary,condensed,and doubtlessincompleteway”(p.3).Needlesstosaythatonecannotthrowaninvitationofsuchpragmatic charmintotheacademicuniversewithimpunity,andthisbookwillshowhowripeforextensionGenette’s initiallisthasbecomeinthedigitalera. Itisalsodifficulttodeny,whenreadingthefruitsofourcollectiveendeavor,theintrinsicallypoetic appealcontainedinthelayeredmeanings,parallels,andinterpretationsthatGenette’sfoundingmetaphor conjuresupforus:“seuils,”thresholds,manifoldpromisesofdiscovery,attimesalmostspellbindingin theirform,attimesdeceptiveorcrudeintheirintent,butalways,stillandseemingly,inherentlyessential. Ifnothingelse,thispowerfulimage,expressedinalanguageof“characteristicGallicclarity”(Doherty, 2014)mayhavegrantedtheparatextualframeworkamoremalleablefuturethanGenetteeverintended. Thisandthefivekeydimensionsoftheparatext’sstatusallleadtofascinatingforaysintodigitalculture. Then,ofcourse,thereisalsothepossibilityoftakingoneorahandfulofparatextualelements—titles, notes, acknowledgments, citations, or signs of authorship—and running with them, as with highly sharpenedscissors,inthedigitalmaze.

“Athresholdexiststobecrossed”(Genette,1997,p.410);thosewordsformthefinalsentenceof Genette’sbook—ifonedoesnotcount,tongue-in-cheek,theparatextualparagraph-longfootnotethat accompaniesit.Socomeshisfinalwarningagainsttheallureofthe“para”overthe“text,”hisultimate pleaforthereinstatement,despitehis400-pageanalysis,ofthetextasourfocusofstudy.Yet,evenasthe digitalrevolutioncausesupheavalanddisruptionintheevolutionofourconceptualtools,paratextualtheory remainstooappealing,toopragmatic,tooaccessible,andtooinherentlybefittingnottobeconsidered, initself,asathresholdtoourgrowingunderstandingofdigitalcontent,which,liketext,doesnotpresent itself“inanunadornedstate,unreinforcedandunaccompaniedbyacertainnumberofverbalorother productions”(Genette,1997,p.1).Itgoeswithoutsayingthat,asscholars,weseektofindmeaning;but ourreferenceshaveshifted,andtheforce,illocutionaryorotherwise,ofparatextualelementscannotbe ignored—beitinthepowerofcitationcountsinthescientificworldorintheundeniableroleofplatform designintheshapingofsocialpractices.AsBlaiseCroninwritesinhisforewordtothisbook:“Suchis thepoweroftheparatext!”If“eachelementoftheparatexthasitsownhistory”(Genette,1997,p.14), thathistoryisstillbeinginscribed,ifnotprinted,inwaysthatwarrantthediscussionspresentedhere. Therefore,balancingonthetightropeofatheorybuiltforbooks,seducedbytheideaofexpandingits powerfulandinterdisciplinarytools,enticedbythethoughtofwritinganewpageinthechasmbetween traditionalanddisruptiveforms,weadvanceovertheunchartedwatersofdigitalculture,knowingthat something,inthisnotionofparatext,remainsastonishinglyrelevant. Nadine Desrochers

Université de Montréal, Canada Daniel Apollon

University of Bergen, Norway

REFERENCES

Andersen,J.(2002).Materialityofworks:Thebibliographicrecordastext.Cataloging & Classification

Quarterly,33(3–4),39–65.doi:10.1300/J104v33n03_04

Barthes,R.(1977).Image, music, text(S.Heath,Trans.).Glasgow:Fontana/Collins.

Bhaskar,M.(2011).Towardsparacontent:Marketing,publishingandculturalforminadigitalenviron-ment.Logos,22(1),25–36.doi:10.1163/095796511X562617 Birke,D.,&Christ,B.(2013).Paratextanddigitizednarrative:Mappingthefield.Narrative,21(1), 65–87.doi:10.1353/nar.2013.0003 Brown,J.S.,&Duguid,P.(1996).Thesociallifeofdocuments.First Monday,1(1).doi:10.5210/ fm.v1i1.466

Chartier,R.(1995).Forms and meaning: Text, performances, and audiences from codex to computer. Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

DigitaltMuseum.(n.d.).Norsk Folkemuseum.RetrievedJanuary10,2014,fromhttp://www.dhs.museum. no/en/bilde/runepinne

xxxix

Doherty,T.(2014,January6).Theparatext’sthething.TheChronicleReview.The Chronicle of Higher

Education.RetrievedJanuary10,2014,fromhttp://chronicle.com/article/The-Paratexts-the-Thing/143761/

Genette,G.(1982).Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré.Paris:Seuil. Genette,G.(1987).Seuils.Paris:Seuil.

Genette,G.(1991).Introductiontotheparatext(M.Maclean,Trans.).New Literary History,22(2), 261–272.doi:10.2307/469037

Genette,G.(1997).Paratexts: Thresholds of interpretation(J.E.Lewin,Trans.).NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511549373

Goody,J.(1995).The domestication of the savage mind.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. (Originalworkpublished1977)

Goody,J.(1996).The logic of writing and the organization of society.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1986)

Goody,J.(1999).Theimplicationsofliteracy.InD.A.Wagner,R.L.Venezky,&B.V.Street(Eds.),

Literacy: An international handbook(pp.29–33).Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Goody,J.(2000).Technologiesoftheintellect:Writingandthewrittenword.InJ.Goody(Ed.),The

power of the written tradition(pp.132–151).Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.

Goody,J.(n.d.).Technologiesoftheintellectandthefutureofthehumanities.International Journal

of the Humanities, 2(3).

Goody,J.,&Watt,I.(1963).Theconsequencesofliteracy.Comparative Studies in Society and History,

5(3),304–345.doi:10.1017/S0010417500001730

Harris,R.(2009).Rationality and the literate mind.London:Taylor&Francis.

Hillesund, T., & Bélisle, C. (2014). What digital remediation does to critical editions and reading practices.InD.Apollon,C.Bélisle,&P.Régnier(Eds.),Digital critical editions (pp.114–154).Chicago: UniversityofIllinoisPress

Ong,W.(2002).Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word(2nded.).NewYork:Routledge. Paling,S.(2002).Thresholdsofaccess:Paratextualityandclassification.Journal of Education for

Library and Information Science,43(2),134–143.doi:10.2307/40323974

Rabardel,P.(1995).Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris:ArmandColinÉditeur.

Shillingsburg,P.(2006).From Gutenberg to Google.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511617942