Ok, since my discussion with
Professor Burton, I have a lot of new ideas swirling around in my head. Where to begin? I plan on making these ideas more clear with time.
Have you ever read a book and immediately began thinking of the book in terms of a movie? Even before the era of movies, some books carry cinematic qualities. The dialogue, scene changes, and character description lend themselves easily to movie adaptation. In fact, a movie can represent the book to such a degree that it, rather than the book, is thought of as the
primary text. The digital age has propagated a
shift in primary textual perception. In order to make this idea more clear, let me compare it with an example with which most of you are probably familiar.
The A&E version of
Pride and Prejudice--how many times have I been criticized for liking any movie adaptation of
Pride and Prejudice rather than the "classic," rather than the "original"? Now I am not dissing on the A&E version by any means. I love it. But
wait a minute...isn't the A&E movie
secondary to the actual book as is the Keira Knightly version? We are comparing movie to movie in
reference to the text. It seems to me that some people have so fixed in their minds that the A&E movie is the living embodiment of the book that they begin to
disregard the book as the primary source, saying to watch that movie and to read the book are virtually the same thing.
In addition, now when you read the book, do you see Colin Firth as the dark and daunting Mr. Darcy? Or the charming Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett? How many of you saw the movie before reading the book? How many of you read the book
because you saw the movie?
In my own experience with
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I realized I was reading a secondary text to the original. I read the English translation. Only then did it dawn on me that even my perception of the "original text" wasn't actually the original at all. That
secondary text acted as the
primary text. Does that make the English translation any less valid? Because a book is in movie format, does that make it any less valuable?
The digital age has opened our perception of what is and isn't counted as a primary text, whether it be a translation of the print version, the ebook, the audiobook, or a well-made movie adaption.
I propose that the literary
canon is opening up again, but this time not to incorporate female or ethnic minority writers, but to include different formats of the literary work. Or rather, maybe there is a separate, but closely linked, canon being created of digital media, a hierarchy among adaptions (think of the A&E Pride and Prejudice being compared to the Keira Knightly version, or the Disney adaptation of
The Hunchback of Notre Dame in comparison with the musical, book, or e/audiobook for that matter). Is there a
new literary canon forming made of digital media? What think ye?
Professor Burton took my analogy that when we try to read in isolation, it is like limiting ourselves to being in Paris looking at the cathedral, and expanded it to a broader idea. If I understood his idea correctly, he suggested that in order to feel like we have really been to a place, to feel like we are taking something with us as we leave, we must document our travels by taking pictures. Going even farther than that, we then feel obligated to post those pictures on Facebook, or other social media sites, in order to feel validation for having been somewhere. Can you really say you've been somewhere without being able to relive the experience though digital proof? He said when he went to the Notre Dame cathedral, he and his son took pictures from the top overlooking the Eiffel Tower in the distance, but he realized they never actually have record of them at the cathedral, only a view from the top. Does that illegitimate his experience?
