Questions that have been raised by the Network so far that might be of interest to those participating in the Imprints of the New Modernist Editing project include:
- What is the significance of the frequent cross-fertilisation of the visual and the literary in the art of the period in responding to these texts?
- How to take account of the particular technological and economic context in which these texts were written? Increased authorial revision made possible by technologies of textual reproduction (cheaper printing, the typewriter); the economics (and aesthetics) of the little magazine/journal/periodical; the economics of larger publishing houses…
- What is the particular status of the typescript as manuscript? What challenges are posed by working with typescripts? – such as how to identify and treat ‘obvious typos’; how to respond to the physical qualities of the typescript (visual, tactile), etc.
- How do we respond to the notion of authorial intention? For example: do we assume that obvious spelling errors ought to be corrected? Do we treat a ‘juvenile’ text differently from a mature work? – etc.
- Given their experimental quality, do some modernist texts project an ideal future reader, that somewhere, one day, there will be a reader who will have a perfect understanding of the text? And if so, does that then suggest a model of the ideal editorial and reading practice?
- Are there different sets of editorial rules for treating poetry, prose, playscripts, letters, diaries…?
- How exhaustive can/ought annotation (explanatory notes) be?
- What are the risks and rewards of new digital technologies in responding to modernist texts?
- How do readers (born digital or otherwise) relate to iconic twentieth-century texts?