The Valve - A Literary Organ | The Annotated Jane & My Scampering Wiffle Snoot

<< Spenser’s allegory | Front Page | n+1 vs. Lit-Bloggers; or, on with the Resipiscence, already >>

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Annotated Jane & My Scampering Wiffle Snoot

Posted by Bill Benzon on 03/16/07 at 04:35 PM

William Grimes reviews David M. Shapard’s The Annotated Pride and Prejudice, with 2300 explanatory notes in pages facing the text, in today’s New York Times:

Mr. Shapard explains absolutely everything. He restores the proper contemporary meanings to word like “condescending” (polite to inferiors) and “vicious” (inclined to vice). “Fun,” it turns out, was a vogue word, the “awesome” of its day, which is why the flighty Lydia Bennet — the foolish sister who runs away with the despicable George Wickham — uses it a lot. Mr. Shapard sorts out the differences among a phaeton, a gig, a chaise and a curricle, distinctions as clear to Austen’s readers as the difference between a Volvo and a Porsche is to us.

Having the details explicated is useful, he says, but not deeply necessary: “The reader who does not know a farthing from a guinea, it’s safe to say, will nonetheless grasp the great drama of attraction and repulsion that plays out between Darcy and Elizabeth. The cut and thrust of their conversation is timeless.” Perhaps—I have no well-thought-out opinion on the matter and no doubt I’ve missed many of the details myself on the two occasions I’ve read the novel. But: Does one read the annotations on the first or on a later trip through the book? Does reading the annotations get in the way of the story’s flow?

Grimes goes on to discuss several books about the world of 19th century British novels, and mentions annotated versions of other works, including The Annotated Archy and Mehitabel by Michael Sims:

I refer readers unfamiliar with the brilliant bug to his account of an interview with a mummified pharaoh at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The conversation is an exchange of preposterous salutations, with Archy addressing the mummy as “my regal leatherface,” “my imperial pretzel” and “imperial fritter,” and the mummy responding in kind. “Greetings, little scatter-footed scarab,” the mummy begins, a warm-up to “my little pest” and “my scampering whiffle snoot.” No footnotes required, really, just an ear.

And then there is The Annotated Lolita, whose author “does an uncanny impression of Charles Kinbote.”

Comments

"Does one read the annotations on the first or on a later trip through the book? Does reading the annotations get in the way of the story’s flow?”

I don’t know about Austen, but I’ve read the “exemplary” Annotated Alice and Snark and they are for aficionados: people who already know the books backwards. One suspects the ideal readers for Gardner’s annotated editions are those people for whom 95% of the annotations are unnecessary, but who are delighted by the 5% they didn’t know before. And the 5% for one ideal reader doesn’t much overlap the 5% for another.

By jim on 03/17/07 at 07:39 PM | Permanent link to this comment

What else could ‘vicious’ possibly mean, when Austen uses it? I have taught students who are confused when she mentions ‘the usual intercourse between the families’ but to provide an explanatory note is to pander to poor readers rather than to help readers who through no faults of their own lack historical knowledge. Most of this type of annotation is superfluous, particularly when the writer is engaged in re(de)fining the lexicon as she uses it. A reader that listens to the text picks up the gradations.

By on 03/18/07 at 07:19 AM | Permanent link to this comment

The pointless criticism of Appel was first started, I believe, by Gore Vidal, who at least was witty about it.

By Jonathan Goodwin on 03/18/07 at 03:05 PM | Permanent link to this comment

here is an excerpt:

http://www.randomhouse.com/anchor/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307278104&view=excerpt

The notes give away plot points and would not be good for a first time reader.

By on 03/19/07 at 08:57 PM | Permanent link to this comment

thanks joeo for the link ..
as for austen, i remember reading the exemplary Annoted Alice and Snark and they’r for aficionados. 95% of the annotations are unnecesary when it comes to Gardner’s annotated editions

By Trish on 08/28/09 at 05:11 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I love The Annotated Archy and Mehitabel. I performed parts of it for competitive Speech in high school and a great many people who hear a great deal of poetry thought it was great. It stands alone in terms of style and subject.

By James on 01/24/11 at 07:54 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

Valve Links

Current Authors

Past Authors

Most recent articles

Most recent comments

Search:

Archives

Syndication

Validation

Credits

Blogroll

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Annotated Jane & My Scampering Wiffle Snoot

Comments

Add a comment: