Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T23:58:38.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“A Hand Spills from the Book's Threshold”: Coauthorship's Readers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Holly A. Laird
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“You see?” said Knarf, suddenly rounding on Ord.

“What about the story?” Ord asked. “It seems to have bogged down in world history. Did it ever get out again?”

“The story goes on, but as the book rises to its crisis it shifts into the major theme of the whole community. It is people in a context and the context grows more and more important. They are only little fishes in a maelstrom.”

“I'm fond of fish,” said Ord, obstinately, determined to get Knarf off his high horse. “What happened to that poor fish, Ally?”

… … …

Ally wasn't so much a fish as a limpet.

Marking a narrative break in the twenty-fourth-century writer Knarf's novel about world war II, a novel Knarf recounts orally to his Friend Ord, this passage From Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (1947; 342-43), by M. Barnard Eldershaw (pseudonym of Marjorie Barnard and Flora Eldershaw), enacts a scene of collaboration, falling just short of “full and equal” partnership (though perhaps all literary collaboration must thus fall). Knarf is a reader of his own text, a listener to his own story; the writer is continually in conversation—disagreeing and agreeing with—a would-be writer of the text; that conversation inflects, indeed inscribes itself in, the writer's writing, so that the would-be other writer—who is a reader and listener too—becomes inseparable from the text in process. Thematically contained in these relations, but also uncontainably circumscribing them, are “world history” and “community”: those suprapersonal entities both demand and are produced by collaboration(ism), yet they also overwhelm, dwarf, or marginalize “little fishes” like Ally, Ord, and Knarf. But, then again, world history and community are themselves elusive if meant as much more than fictions about and by little fishes, riding on their high horses.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , March 2001 , pp. 344 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Aaron, Jane. A Double Singleness: Gender and the Writings of Charles and Mary Lamb. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ann E., Austin, and Baldwin, Roger G. Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching.Google Scholar
ASHE-ERIC Higher Educ. Report 7. Washington: School of Educ. and Human Dev., George Washington U, 1991.Google Scholar
Bauer, Dale M. “The Politics of Collaboration in The Whole Family.” Old Maids to Radical Spinsters: Unmarried Women in the Twentieth-Century Novel. Ed. Doan, Laura L. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1991. 107–22.Google Scholar
Brodkey, Linda. Academic Writing as Social Practice. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Brooker, Jewel Spears. “Common Ground and Collaboration in T. S. Eliot.” Centennial Review 25 (1981): 225–38.Google Scholar
Brown, Dennis. Inlertextual Dynamics within the Literary Group—Joyce, Lewis, Pound, and Eliot: The Men of 1914. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990.Google Scholar
Chadwick, Whitney, and Courtivron, Isabelle de, eds. Significant Others: Creativity and Intimate Partnership. 1993. London: Thames, 1996.Google Scholar
Delbanco, Nicholas. Group Portrait: Conrad, Crane, Ford, James, and Wells. New York: Morrow, 1982.Google Scholar
Ede, Lisa, and Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration and Compromise: The Fine Art of Writing with a Friend.” Writers on Writing. Ed. Waldrep, Tom. Vol. 2. New York: Random, 1988. 121–27.Google Scholar
Ede, Lisa, and Lunsford, Andrea. “Rhetoric in a New Key: Women and Collaboration.” Rhetoric Review 8 (1990): 234–41.Google Scholar
Ede, Lisa, and Lunsford, Andrea. Singular Texts / Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. 1990. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992.Google Scholar
Ede, Lisa, and Lunsford, Andrea. “Why Write … Together?” Rhetoric Review 1 (1983): 150–57.10.1080/07350198309359047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ede, Lisa, and Lunsford, Andrea. “Why Write … Together: A Research Update.” Rhetoric Review 5 (1986): 71–81.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, Susan. Strange Power of Speech: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Literary Possession. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.Google Scholar
Elbrecht, Joyce, and Fakundiny, Lydia. The Restorationist: Text One—A Collaborative Fiction by Jael B. Juba. Albany: State U of New York P, 1993.Google Scholar
Elbrecht, Joyce. “Scenes from a Collaboration; or, Becoming Jael B. Juba.” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 13 (1994): 241–57.10.2307/464108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldershaw, M. Barnard. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow. 1947. London: Virago, 1983.Google Scholar
Felber, Lynette. “Literary Liaisons and Textual Appropriations: Modernist Women's Fictional Auto/Biography.” Unpublished ms., 2000.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. Underneath the Bough. London: Bell, 1893.Google Scholar
Field, Michael. Works and Days: From the Journal of Michael Field. Ed. Moore, T. Sturge and Sturge Moore, D. C. London: Murray, 1933.Google Scholar
Forman, Janis. Introduction. New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Forman. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1992. xi-xxii.Google Scholar
Gere, Anne Ruggles. Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.Google Scholar
Herd, David. “Collaboration and the Avant-Garde.” Critical Review 35 (1995): 36–63.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Carey, and Rose, Ellen Cronan. “Strange Bedfellows: Feminist Collaboration.” Signs 18 (1993): 547–61.10.1086/494819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koestenbaum, Wayne. Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration. New York: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
Laird, Holly. Women Coauthors. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2000.Google Scholar
Leonard, James S., Christine E. Wharton, Robert Murray Davis, and Harris, Jeanette, eds. Author-ity and Textuality: Current Views of Collaborative Writing. West Cornwall: Locust Hill, 1994.Google Scholar
London, Bette. Writing Double: Women's Literary Partnerships. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999.Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.Google Scholar
Miner, Valerie. “An Imaginative Collectivity of Writers and Readers.” Lesbian Texts and Contexts: Radical Revisions. Ed. Jay, Karla and Glasgow, Joanne. New York: New York UP, 1990. 13–27.Google Scholar
Miner, Valerie. “Writing Feminist Fiction: Solitary Genesis or Collective Criticism?” Frontiers 6.1 (1981): 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
On Collaborations. Spec. forum of Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 13.2, 14.1 (1994-95).Google Scholar
Peck, Elizabeth G., and Mink, JoAnna Stephens, eds. Common Ground: Feminist Collaboration in the Academy. Albany: State U of New York P, 1998.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Eric. A Textual Companion to Doctor Faustus. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Reagan, Sally Barr, Fox, Thomas, and Bleich, David, eds. Writing With: New Directions in Collaborative Teaching, Learning, and Research. Albany: State U of New York P, 1994.Google Scholar
Redgrove, Peter, and Shuttle, Penelope. The Hermaphrodite Album. London: Fuller d'Arch Smith, 1973.Google Scholar
Sicker, Philip. “Pale Fire and Lyrical Ballads: The Dynamics of Collaboration.” Papers on Language and Literature 28 (1992): 305–18.Google Scholar
Spigelman, Candace. Across Property Lines: Textual Ownership in Writing Groups. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack, ed. Autobiography. By John Stuart Mill. Boston: Houghton, 1969.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack, ed. The Early Draft of John Stuart Mill's Autobiography. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1961.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack. “Who Wrote J. S. Mill's Autobiography?” Victorian Studies 27 (1983): 7–23.Google Scholar
Stone, Marjorie, and Thompson, Judith, eds. “Literary Couplings and the Construction of Authorship: Writing Couples and Collaborators in Historical Context.” Unpublished anthology, 2000.Google Scholar
Thomas, Gordon K. “The Lyrical Ballads Ode: ‘Dialogized Heteroglossia.‘” Wordsworth Circle 20 (1989): 102–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley W., Wells, and Taylor, Gary, with Montgomery, John Jowett and William. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha. “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author.‘” Eighteenth-Century Studies 17 (1984): 425–48.10.2307/2738129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha. “On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity.” Woodmansee and Jaszi 15–28.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha, and Jaszi, Peter, eds. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1994.Google Scholar