Daniel Hardat
Professor Silva
English 410
05 March, 2023
Materialities Paper Draft
In our modern world, where books are mass produced and relatively inexpensive to procure, we rarely pay much attention to the book as an object and usually only consider the content contained within as having value. In the novel S. by authors J.J. Abrams and Doug Dorst, however, the book object can be seen as being as valuable, if not more so, than the content. In fact, through the use of many types of paratextual devices, and especially through the prolific use of marginalia, it can be said that the book object itself creates its own content. Some may argue that the employment of these devices detracts from the overall reading of the book, but my contention is that it was the authors’ intent to disrupt the standard reading process by providing a reading experience that forces us to consider the actual materiality of the book.
In the novel, the “main” storyline, Ship of Theseus, is quickly supplanted by the marginal notations made by the fictional readers, Jen and Eric. The annotations made by the two “readers” help develop additional storylines in the novel. Of particular note is the marginalia that hint at a budding intimacy between the two readers, which serves to create its very own and, arguably, more important narrative. Even before the start of the “actual” story Ship of Theseus, Jen alludes to a more developed level of intimacy than was thus far realized by the two readers as she notates “I don’t think we should assume Caldeira was stupid/insane. There’s got to be more to it” (iii). The use of the word we here indicates that Jen has already considered the two to have some type of bond, and is summarily questioned by Eric on its use. [The rest of this paragraph goes on to detail the development of Jen and Eric’s relationship, culminating in their meeting in the real world].
The above mentioned progression of Jen and Eric’s relationship creates an epistolary-like narrative in the margins of Ship of Theseus that acts like a text within a text and is reminiscent of novels from bygone eras. The transformative quality of the narrative relates to ideas put forth by author Karen ni Mheallaigh in her article “Protean Texts: The Changing Materiality of Brooks in Antiquity and Today”. In her work, ni Mheallaigh focuses on “the transformation of texts as material objects from one form into another (or several others) in a way that provoked their readers’ awareness of how different book-forms can carry different meanings” (44). [Discuss this quote further as it relates to S.] As ni Mheallaigh also notes, “Today, with the increased pressure towards digitalization, our textual culture is again undergoing a seismic flux which is in many respects comparable to the ancient context” (44). [This paragraph continues to draw parallels between the article’s examples and the Jen and Eric narrative and focuses especially on the author’s idea of the physical book being part of the reading experience].
As mentioned before, the plot relating to Jen and Eric’s developing relationship becomes more engaging to us, the “real” readers than does the “main” story, Ship of Theseus. In her article “Reading S. across Media”, author Alison Gibbons posits some possible explanations for this heightened sense of engagement. As Gibbons explains, “although print and handwriting are both linguistic in terms of semiotic substance, readers experience them differently because they operate according to different spatiotemporal logic: printed type enacts a temporal logic as expected of verbal art; handwriting in its role here as marginalia is part of the visual, spatial logic of the printed page” (324). [Analysis needed]. Gibbons goes to further assert that “at the cultural level, type and handwriting are seen as opposites, communicating contrasting values in relation to the concepts of singularity, individuality, and materiality” (324). [Analysis needed]. Finally, Gibbons goes on to explain why we find Jen and Eric’s narrative more engaging than the Ship of Theseus narrative. She explains “Considering the text’s creation of the storyworld, then, the pages of S. stage a sequence of worlds, starting with the Ship of Theseus text, which, resulting from print’s reproducibility, appears—ontologically—furthest removed from the book’s real readers. In contrast, the library book illusion and the authenticity associated with handwriting make Eric and Jen’s marginalia seem closer to the real reader’s reality” (326). [Analysis needed].
By embedding the Jen and Eric narrative in the novel S., Abrams and Dorst create an additional storyworld that supersedes the storyworld of Ship of Theseus in terms of its intrinsic value as content. The authors succeeded in achieving this task by making use of different methods. For example, the Jen and Eric narrative spans different types of media, forcing the reader to engage with the narrative using different senses. Additionally, the narrative takes place over different temporalities, which engages the reader by creating the illusion that as the story unfolds, it gets closer and closer to the reader’s own timeline. Lastly, the use of handwritten notes, which are perceived to be much more intimate than the typed text that it is juxtaposed with, stimulates a sense of familiarity between the actual reader and the two fictional readers. The authors’ intentionality is apparent through the use of these carefully contrived and employed tactics. [Further explanation needed]. The two authors also take advantage of the recent rise in interest for all things analog in our increasingly digital world. As Gibbons puts it, “referencing the proliferation of new media technologies in contemporary culture, Abrams frames S. as intentionally and exultantly analog” (323).
[Conclusion needed].
Works Cited
Dorst, Doug, and J.J. Abrams. S..Mulholland Books, 2013.
Gibbons, Alison. “Reading S. across Media: Transmedia Storyworlds, Multimodal Fiction, and
Real Readers.” Narrative, vol. 25, no. 3, 2017, pp. 321–41. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26539898.
ní Mheallaigh, Karen. “Protean Texts: The Changing Materiality of Books in Antiquity and Today.” Material Culture, vol. 48, no. 1, 2016, pp. 44–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44507772.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Peer: Dan
Reviewer: Diamond
Argument:
I think the paper is in development of a cohesive argument. I identify it in the first paragraph but it gets lost in the reading, the excessive quoting and not really elaborating on marginal notes or paratextual elements. This I believe . This is a great start and you obviously know your next clear steps. After reading the whole paper as stated before the thesis gets lost so therefore the paper does not sustain it . Some quotes are hard to read or see an analysis .The paragraph that reads the strongest is five , because it offers a beginning of a throughput analysis of the novel and an additional summary . Paragraph three needs more attention to argumentation and analysis . For example you use two quotes from one of your outside sources however it’s hard to draw correlations to your argument . The quote you use is “ Today , with the increased pressure towards digitalization our textual culture is again undergoing a seismic flux which is in many respects comparable to ancient content” Then you have an bracket explanation of what you would do next and how you are going draw on Jen and Eric narrative but I’m not seeing the connection to your argument of “authors intent to disrupt the standard reading process by providing a reading experience that forces is to consider the actual materiality .” If you were to discuss the article as it relates to a book as a material object in general I believe it will work or maybe a summary of the article so the connection is vivid.
Textual Evidence:
-Overall I think your use of direct quotes from the novel are quoted properly but it’s a touch and go situation. One minute you discuss the quote then state it then offer a further analysis but then the next quoting will fall short more elaboration can work. However, where it’s done well is when you discuss the intimacy of Jen and Eric’s relationship, setting us up for what you are about to quote and then you analyze it in your own words. Great job.
External sources:
-I think the source “Reading S.Across Media” is more appropriate to your argument than the other one as the article I stated your analysis is more clear and connected this article as you describe conveys the purpose of S to disrupt the common reading standards it clearly draws on the relationship of content and materiality. The sources can be intertwined throughout the paper instead of subjecting them to one single paragraph(Prof.Silvia gave me this sage advice this will serve as more relevancy and makes a better point for your argument . The sources are quoted a lot but lack a little summary. It’s clear that you understand the meaning of the source you use but there’s not enough conversation around it . Like you have in brackets analysis needed or further explanation your next steps are evident , continue the process well done thus far.
Feedback :
I will reread your introduction. I assume that’s your first paragraph, just a few interesting unfinished thoughts, for example when you state “ S. by authors J.J Abrams and Dough , however , the book,, ” I’m quite confused if you were supposed to elaborate here.
You use a lot of unique terms like “bygone era” I had to look up what that meant It states existing or happening long time ago I think it would’ve been more interesting to elaborate on this idea more if you are connecting it to the theme of the novel I feel as though it’s just left hanging .
The paper has a clear argumentative thesis that the authors of the novel S intended to disrupt the standard reading process. The paper provides textual evidence supporting this argument through the analysis of marginalia and how they create their content, with each paragraph supporting and expanding the idea laid out. The first paragraph reads the strongest because it establishes the main argument. The section needing more attention to argumentation analysis is the one introducing Karen ni Mheallaigh’s work on transforming texts as material objects, as it requires more research and explanation of how it relates to the argument.
Textual evidence
The paper appropriately uses direct quotes and paraphrasing to support its idea. One place that is well done is the discussion of Jen and Eric’s relationship, and one place needing the addition of evidence is the paragraph introducing Karen ni Mheallaigh’s work.
External sources
The articles referenced in the preparation appropriately provide insights into transforming texts as material objects. The sources integrated well supporting and expanding on the argument presented in the paper. The excellent summarization of the authorities, but the paragraph introducing author Karen would benefit more from synthesis and explanation of the idea.
Feedback
Provide more specific examples from the novel to support the discussion, and there is a need for more analysis in the paragraph introducing the sources.
Dan,
I think Diamond sums it up really well in her feedback. While the individual paragraphs thus far are strong and compelling, they are not yet coming together to support a cohesive thesis. Think about how the ideas of intimacy built into and through the text are happening through the materiality. Some other points:
The issue of intimacy should be introduced in more detail at the start of paragraph 2, and possibly within the thesis, and both need to more clearly tie to the textual evidence.
Don’t forget to debate the role of the source for your argument, not just in relation to the text.
You state that “By embedding the Jen and Eric narrative in the novel S., Abrams and Dorst create an additional storyworld that supersedes the storyworld of Ship of Theseus in terms of its intrinsic value as content” — this is an excellent point, but how does this come back to materiality as introduced in parag. 1?
Finally, I’m wondering if the last paragraph drafted here might make more sense as the second paragraph, as it lays out a lot of special examples of how the text builds on intimacy with the reader?
1. Argument:
• Does this paper have a clear, argumentative thesis? Can you identify what kinds of textual evidence will be used to support it?
I think the thesis of the argument is clear. The type of textual evidence is identified. It will be the marginalia of the text that is the paratext that will bring about the textual evidence.
• After you’ve read the whole paper, how does the paper sustain the thesis statement? In other words: does each paragraph support and expand the argument laid out in the thesis?
The paper sustains the thesis statement. Each paragraph supports the argument laid out by the thesis.
• Which paragraph reads the strongest with regards to the central argument, and why?
Paragraph 1 is the strongest paragraph to me because it focuses on the marginalia of the novel and the topic sentence helped to make the entire argument flow well.
• Which paragraph needs more attention to argumentation and analysis? Provide specific suggestions.
The paragraph that needs more attention is Paragraph three. The two outside sources that was used does not add argument that blends in with the thesis statement. Use sources that will lead you into the argument that will enhance your argument and speak to your thesis.
2. Textual evidence:
• Does the paper make appropriate use of direct quotes and paraphrasing from the novel to support its argument? Discuss one place where this is done well and one place where you think evidence needs to be added (or different examples need to be se
The paper makes use of direct quotes that support the argument. You just need to expand more on the analysis. “I don’t think we should assume Caldeira was stupid/insane. There’s got to be more to it” (iii). The use of the word we here indicate that Jen has already considered the two to have some type of bond, and is summarily questioned by Eric on its use” paragraph 2.
Paragraph 3 is done well. Today, with the increased pressure towards digitalization, our textual culture is again undergoing a seismic flux which is in many respects comparable to the ancient context” (44). [This paragraph continues to draw parallels between the article’s examples and the Jen and Eric narrative and focuses especially on the author’s idea of the physical book being part of the reading experience].
3. External sources:
• Are the articles referenced in the paper appropriate for the argument? Explain.
The articles reference in this paper is appropriate to your argument especially the one entitles “Reading Across Media.”
• Are the sources well integrated into the student’s own ideas, or do they seem disconnected from the argument of the paper? Give at least one example.
The sources are integrated into your own ideas but need more analysis that I think you are aware of based on your indication: although print and handwriting are both linguistic in terms of semiotic substance, readers experience them differently because they operate according to different spatiotemporal logic: printed type enacts a temporal logic as expected of verbal art; handwriting in its role here as marginalia is part of the visual, spatial logic of the printed page” (324). [Analysis needed].
• Are the sources sufficiently summarized so that outside readers can understand what the article is arguing? If not, offer suggestions for where more summary or synthesis needs to happen.
Your summarizing is in the right direction. The articles you are arguing is understandable.
4. Feedback
• Provide 2 specific suggestions for revision — these can be about organization, style, clarity, or argument.
Work on your analysis in each paragraph, you need to expand on them.
You can make use of more quotes in the text itself and expand your argument base on that. You have the potential to have an excellent argument.