froM pArAtex t to polyproCess: the “Quirk y” MAshup novel
91
purpose.” 11 Rather than drawing readers outside or inside of texts, the
literary text has become merely one element in a fluid “polytexual” or
even “polyprocessual” cultural situation. The term “polytext” is taken
from revisionist textual scholars Jerome McGann and Joseph Grigely who
have argued since the 1980s that any text is merely apparent in a variety of
manifestations (what Grigely coins “textualterity”) or textual events. 12 In
view of the fact, however, that both terms, polytext and paratext, actually
refer to praxis, to “doing” texts, my term “polyprocess” (i.e., the potentially
endless operations on textual variation) seems to be more appropriate. 13
To some extent, then, the arcane Genettian terminology of text, paratext,
context, epitext, peritext, and allograph, suggesting clear-cut boundaries
between textual practices, is compromised. It is probably best to use the term
“paratext” with reference to transmedia phenomena to mark the threshold
between a “textual core” 14 or “anchor-text” 15 from other kinds of textual
engagements. It follows that dynamic concepts, such as Ellen McCracken’s
distinction between centrifugal and centripetal movement – which stands
in for Genette’s structuralist typological distinctions – work much better
under the conditions of an intertwined “connectivity between markets and
media practices,” 16 or “spreadable media.” 17 The concepts of “canon” and
“universe” suggest that, in spite of the lost Gutenbergian cultural primacy of
the book, a textual center is still a major cause of disagreement and therefore
remains a key factor in the field of cultural production. With McCracken,
the current paratextual concern should therefore be the question of whether
the connected paratexts induce centripetal and centrifugal movement
with reference to one or more textual cores or anchor-texts that could be
an Austen novel, a Shakespeare play, or a Disney franchise.
11 Genette, Paratexts, 2 (emphasis in original).
12 Joseph Grigely, “The Textual Event.” In Devils and Angels: Textual Editing and Literary Theory,
ed. Philip Cohen (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1991), 176–177; Jerome McGann,
A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 52.
13 Cf. Eckart Voigts-Virchow, “Anti-Essentialist Versions of Aggregate Alice: A Grin without a
Cat.” In Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Film, ed. Katja Krebs (New York: Routledge,
2013), 71.
14 Birke and Christ, “Paratext and Digitized Narrative,” 80.
15 Amy Nottingham-Martin, “Thresholds of Transmedia Storytelling: Applying Gérard Genette’s
Paratextual Theory to The 39 Clues Series for Young Readers.” In Examining Paratextual Theory
and its Applications in Digital Culture, ed. Nadine Desrochers and Daniel Apollon (Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, 2014), 290.
16 Mirko Tobias Schäfer, Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011), 11.
17 Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning
in a Networked Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013).
91
purpose.” 11 Rather than drawing readers outside or inside of texts, the
literary text has become merely one element in a fluid “polytexual” or
even “polyprocessual” cultural situation. The term “polytext” is taken
from revisionist textual scholars Jerome McGann and Joseph Grigely who
have argued since the 1980s that any text is merely apparent in a variety of
manifestations (what Grigely coins “textualterity”) or textual events. 12 In
view of the fact, however, that both terms, polytext and paratext, actually
refer to praxis, to “doing” texts, my term “polyprocess” (i.e., the potentially
endless operations on textual variation) seems to be more appropriate. 13
To some extent, then, the arcane Genettian terminology of text, paratext,
context, epitext, peritext, and allograph, suggesting clear-cut boundaries
between textual practices, is compromised. It is probably best to use the term
“paratext” with reference to transmedia phenomena to mark the threshold
between a “textual core” 14 or “anchor-text” 15 from other kinds of textual
engagements. It follows that dynamic concepts, such as Ellen McCracken’s
distinction between centrifugal and centripetal movement – which stands
in for Genette’s structuralist typological distinctions – work much better
under the conditions of an intertwined “connectivity between markets and
media practices,” 16 or “spreadable media.” 17 The concepts of “canon” and
“universe” suggest that, in spite of the lost Gutenbergian cultural primacy of
the book, a textual center is still a major cause of disagreement and therefore
remains a key factor in the field of cultural production. With McCracken,
the current paratextual concern should therefore be the question of whether
the connected paratexts induce centripetal and centrifugal movement
with reference to one or more textual cores or anchor-texts that could be
an Austen novel, a Shakespeare play, or a Disney franchise.
11 Genette, Paratexts, 2 (emphasis in original).
12 Joseph Grigely, “The Textual Event.” In Devils and Angels: Textual Editing and Literary Theory,
ed. Philip Cohen (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1991), 176–177; Jerome McGann,
A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 52.
13 Cf. Eckart Voigts-Virchow, “Anti-Essentialist Versions of Aggregate Alice: A Grin without a
Cat.” In Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Film, ed. Katja Krebs (New York: Routledge,
2013), 71.
14 Birke and Christ, “Paratext and Digitized Narrative,” 80.
15 Amy Nottingham-Martin, “Thresholds of Transmedia Storytelling: Applying Gérard Genette’s
Paratextual Theory to The 39 Clues Series for Young Readers.” In Examining Paratextual Theory
and its Applications in Digital Culture, ed. Nadine Desrochers and Daniel Apollon (Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, 2014), 290.
16 Mirko Tobias Schäfer, Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011), 11.
17 Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning
in a Networked Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013).