Alien Shakespeares 2.0

Shakespeareans have begun to study the bard in New Media, and a smaller group studies Shakespearean texts from the perspective of Digital Humanities research. However, these disciplinary divisions, with their varying theoretical perspectives, prevent us from seeing useful commonalities between these two domains of digital Shakespeare. This essay seeks to begin the conversation of examining digital Shakespeare as a general category under the theoretical umbrella of Ian Bogost’s “alien phenomenology,” which regards objects of all kinds – concrete and abstract, “real” and imaginary – as existing equally, or as having a comparable ontological status. The theory insists at once on the autonomy and integrity of objects or units and on the ubiquitous enfolding of systems, and therefore of relationships, both within and beyond objects. Bogost’s principal metaphor for what he calls not merely a “flat ontology” but a “tiny ontology,” is the black hole, which is at once an infinitely dense point and an enfolded form of an entire universe. Following alien phenomenology in examples from YouTube, the searchable Folger Digital Texts, the Shakespeare in Quarto Archive, and both the Luminary and Shakespeare in Bits apps, the essay suggests how both persons and texts are units or objects imbricated in a system, or even tangle, of relationships that make up digital Shakespeare’s systems of meaning. The essay concludes by suggesting that the investigation of alien phenomenology in digital Shakespeare artifacts both counteracts erroneous assumptions about the transparency and “relatability” of applications dedicated to Shakespeare and stresses the importance of recognizing a wide range of agents at play in digital Shakespeare.Les études sur la présence de Shakespeare dans les nouveaux médias commencent à se développer, ainsi que l’analyse de ses textes du point de vue de la recherche en Humanités Numériques. Ces deux domaines qui traitent de Shakespeare dans le monde numérique, bien que souvent séparés, ont pourtant des points communs, que cet article s’efforce de faire ressortir à partir de la notion de « phénoménologie des choses » (alien phenomenology) développée par Ian Bogost. Il s’agit de considérer tous les objets (concrets et abstraits, « réels » et imaginaires) sur le même plan d’existence, de leur attribuer le même statut ontologique en insistant à la fois sur l’autonomie et l’intégrité des objets ou unités et sur l’omniprésence de systèmes, et donc de relations, au-dedans et au-dehors des objets. La métaphore centrale de cette théorie, que son auteur qualifie d’« ontologie du minuscule », est celle du trou noir, point à la fois infiniment dense et forme condensée d’un univers entier. Cet article analysera des exemples tirés de YouTube, des textes numérisés de la Folger Shakespeare Library, des archives Shakespeare in Quarto, et de deux applications, Luminary et Shakespeare in Bits, afin de montrer l’imbrication des objets et des personnes dans des réseaux enchevêtrés de relations qui constituent les systèmes d’interprétation du « Shakespeare numérique ». Grâce aux outils fournis par la théorie de Bogost, il est possible de réfuter des suppositions erronées concernant la transparence et l’accès direct à Shakespeare que prétendent donner certaines applications, tout en reconnaissant la grande variété d’acteurs impliqués dans le processus

Shakespeare’s Scattered Leaves: Mutilated Books, Unbound Pages, and the Circulation of the First Folio

The life cycle of books is often expressed through tropes of destruction. Most common are the metaphor of books as a tortured bodies or objects dissolved by water, but the book as a tree whose leaves are scattered to the winds offers an alternative, and less, negative model. This essay examines each of these tropes to argue that contemporary narratives surrounding the creation, circulation, and consumption of William Shakespeare’s First Folio of 1623 figure the cultural fate of that text in elegiac terms of mutilation and dissolution, but that the celebratory tale of “Shakespeare unbound” through the scattering of the First Folio’s “leaves” or pages emerges in our discourse about the bard as a counter-narrative, confirmed and sustained by the First Folio’s increased dissemination, in both material and digitized form, during the twenty-first century.Le cycle de vie des livres est souvent exprimé à l'aide de tropes pour dire la destruction. Les plus communes sont la métaphore des livres comme corps torturés ou bien comme objets dissous dans l'eau, tandis que celle du livre comme arbre dont les feuilles sont emportées par les vents offre une alternative, un modèle moins négatif. Le présent essai examine chacune de ces tropes afin de montrer que les récits contemporains qui sont faits de la création, de la circulation et de la consommation du Premier Folio de Shakespeare (1623) figurent la destinée culturelle de ce texte dans les termes élégiaques de la mutilation et de la dissolution, alors que ceux qui célèbrent un "Shakespeare désenchaîné" à travers la dispersion des "feuilles" ou des pages du Premier Folio font émerger dans notre discours sur le barde un contre-récit fondé et alimenté par la dissémination toujours plus large du Premier Folio au format papier ou numérisé au cours du vingt-et-unième siècle

Text, Style, and Author in Hamlet Q1

The first quarto of Hamlet has traditionally been an embarrassment to attribution studies. Textual and bibliographical studies from the 1980s and beyond have permitted suspect texts to be recovered and performed, but critical appreciation tends to focus on such matters as characterization and performance possibilities rather than the text’s rhetorical integrity and aesthetic qualities. More recently, we have seen greater critical attention to Shakespeare’s suspect texts, which has increased our appreciation for and expanded our notion of Q1 Hamlet as a ‘text’. Opinion remains divided, however, on the question of who ‘wrote’ this play. This essay addresses the authorship debate somewhat indirectly by providing a different view of Hamlet Q1 based on a stylistic analysis that is grounded in Renaissance rhetoric. It characterizes the play’s style as the rhetoric of speed, with brachylogia as its representative rhetorical figure. Through review of theories about the composition of Hamlet Q1 and a rhetorical analysis of its style, the essay seeks to examine how Hamlet’s first quarto might have a recognizable style and how that style might be related to current concepts of authorship

“The dread of something after death”: Hamlet and the Emotional Afterlife of Shakespearean Revenants

The Shakespearean corpus provides fifty instances of the word “dread.” My examination suggests that an atmosphere of dread correlates with specific genres (the Roman plays, English histories), subjects (politics and history), and works (The Rape of Lucrece and Hamlet). In a few cases, notably Lucrece, “dread” is also associated with an acute awareness of life-after-death in the form of history and reputation. Dread of God’s judgment is a common theme in uses of word before 1600, as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary. In Hamlet, however, there emerges a more modern connotation of “dread” as a malaise that persists after death. The old-fashioned ghost has confidence that his material condition in whatever afterlife he inhabits could make Hamlet’s hair stand on end; he has a traditional early modern sense of dread as terror that expresses itself through the body. But the dread that stays Hamlet’s hand is different. I place Hamlet and his father’s ghost within the context of other early modern revenants who relive emotionally their pasts. These revenants belong to the poetic female complaint, a tradition popular in the 1590s that specifically informs The Rape of Lucrece. The dread felt by Lucrece and Hamlet comes from anticipating historical reputation but also from a perception of the conflict between historical character and lived reality that haunts historical actors in the afterlife.Le corpus shakespearien contient cinquante occurrences du mot « dread » (terreur). Mon analyse suggère qu’une atmosphère de terreur est associée à des genres spécifiques (les pièces romaines, les pièces historiques anglaises), à des sujets spécifiques (la politique et l’histoire), et à des œuvres spécifiques (Le Viol de Lucrèce et Hamlet). Dans quelques cas, et en particulier Lucrèce, la terreur s’accompagne aussi d’une conscience aiguë de la vie après la mort sous l’aspect de l’histoire et de la réputation. La terreur du jugement de Dieu est un thème commun dans les emplois du mot « dread » avant 1600, d’après les relevés du dictionnaire Oxford English Dictionary. Dans Hamlet, toutefois, émerge une connotation plus moderne du terme : un malaise qui perdure après la mort. Le fantôme démodé est sûr que sa condition matérielle post-mortem pourrait faire se dresser les cheveux de Hamlet ; il a un sens de la terreur typique de la Renaissance, et qui passe par le corps. Mais c’est une autre terreur qui arrête la main de Hamlet. J’étudie Hamlet et le fantôme de son père dans le contexte d’autres revenants de la première modernité qui revivent en émotion leur passé. Ces revenants appartiennent au genre de la complainte féminine, tradition populaire dans les années 1590 qui informe Le Viol de Lucrèce. La terreur que ressentent Lucrèce et Hamlet provient de leur anticipation de leur réputation historique, mais aussi de leur perception du conflit entre le personnage historique et la réalité vécue qui hante les protagonistes historiques dans l’autre vie

Text, Style, and Author in <em>Hamlet</em> Q1

The first quarto of Hamlet has traditionally been an embarrassment to attribution studies. Textual and bibliographical studies from the 1980s and beyond have permitted suspect texts to be recovered and performed, but critical appreciation tends to focus on such matters as characterization and performance possibilities rather than the text’s rhetorical integrity and aesthetic qualities. More recently, we have seen greater critical attention to Shakespeare’s suspect texts, which has increased our appreciation for and expanded our notion of Q1 Hamlet as a ‘text’. Opinion remains divided, however, on the question of who ‘wrote’ this play. This essay addresses the authorship debate somewhat indirectly by providing a different view of Hamlet Q1 based on a stylistic analysis that is grounded in Renaissance rhetoric. It characterizes the play’s style as the rhetoric of speed, with brachylogia as its representative rhetorical figure. Through review of theories about the composition of Hamlet Q1 and a rhetorical analysis of its style, the essay seeks to examine how Hamlet’s first quarto might have a recognizable style and how that style might be related to current concepts of authorship