Is textual fluidity a fact or a theory? As in, are texts inherently set in stone as definite editions, or are there always going to be multiple versions due to revision and adaptation that means text will constantly be in a state of evolution?
kek this shit is gay
>>7702936
But isn't it interesting to think about the social and economic pressures that caused a book to be printed at a certain time and then changed much later?
>>7702942
It is interesting, I was just making myself laugh while bumping your thread. Very juvenile, I know.
Never really thought about it, though. Would censoring "nigger jim" and changing it to something else fall under what you're talking about? Or are you talking strictly format?
>>7702960
Yeah exactly. Like in the original draft of Melville'd Typee, he changes almost all the usages of the word savage and native to islander, as if possibly realizing the cultural and racial implications caused by the usage. And some sex scenes cam be shown to be toned down in later drafts, due to the sexuality affecting sales at the time.
In essence, a published work is like a window to view what personal and social forces were focused on at the time, and by seeing various versions and editions, be it a manuscript or a film adaptation, you can see stills of writers writing to fit the social climate of their time.
