The comparison of various editions of literary works, especially of plays, allows the reader to gain greater insight, as well as a deeper appreciation and understanding of the work. Upon doing a thorough comparison, it is possible to clearly identify language use, punctuation and formatting that either enhances or detracts from the text.
After comparing the Oxford World’s Classics edition of Macbeth and the online version provided by MIT, it is apparent that the Oxford edition’s use and presentation of language, punctuation, stage directions and character information is more effective than the online text’s. One of the most significant differences between the Oxford version and the MIT version is the use of punctuation in the text. The MIT version tends to omit much of the punctuation present in the Oxford version. For example, the MIT version omits a question mark in line 1 or one comma line 4 of act 1 scene 1. Overall, the punctuation in the Oxford version is more effective than in the MIT version as it excellently accentuates Shakespeare’s language-choice and phrases, providing for a clearer and more comprehensive reading and understanding of the text.
The stage directions in these two versions are also rather different. For example, the MIT version adds an extra stage direction that is powerful enough to change the disposition of the scene. “Exit Sergeant, attended” is added in into the middle act 1 scene 2 of the MIT version, which causes the atmosphere of the rest of the scene to be less somber than in the Oxford version where the bleeding Captain remains present for the rest of the scene.
The word choice in the MIT version of the play differs from the word choice in the Oxford version. For example, the Captain is referred to as “The Sergeant” in the former version of Macbeth. In addition, there are different spellings of certain words in both versions. In the Oxford version, some of the words that differ include “galloglasses” instead of “gallowglasses”, and “chops” instead of the misspelled word in the MIT version, “chaps”.
The physical differences between the two texts are also extensive— ranging from the font and layout to the capitalization of certain characters’ names. The MIT version is not at all aesthetically pleasing. The text is double spaced, requiring constant scrolling; it capitalizes the true name of characters, such as “MACBETH”, but does not capitalize the titles of characters, such as “Seargent”, which proves to be distracting. Also, the lines are not numbered and no notes on the text are provided as in the Oxford version, so these helpful components are missing. The only major addition in the MIT version that is not present in the Oxford edition is a description of the location of each scene. For example, scene 1 is introduced as “SCENE I. A desert place.”
Although the text itself does not differ greatly between the two versions of Macbeth, numerous details such as punctuation and stage directions are significantly different, but because they are capable of altering one’s perception of the text, they prove to be critical in one’s reading of the text. Overall the Oxford Edition tends to provide a better rendition of Macbeth than the MIT on-line version.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've been reading some of the other blogs which covered MIT vs. Oxford and I've been comparing it with our own UVirginia vs. Oxford. I've noticed a few similarites. For example, stage directions are omitted in the Oxford copy, but included in both University copies. I've also noticed that the University copies have more spelling "mistakes"/said-as-it-is-spelled words than the Oxford copy. Our two copies are also similar in the sense that they have a TOC and have a few similarities in punctuation. There is the ocasional comma turned semicolon which you also mentioned you saw. Furthermore, our text also uses the "seargeant" and the various CAPITALIZED and lowercased characters.
Just what I've noticed...
-Batman (Laurence Batmazian)
I agree with much of the article. The lack of line numbers in the MIT version makes it very difficult when you're searching for specific parts of a scene. I however prefer the way the MIT version is organized over Oxford. The double spacing, I find, makes it easier to read and follow. In addition, the MIT version, being a website, has a table of contents which allows very quick access to certain scenes.
-Vance
I disagree with this article. The line numbers in the Oxford vesion just aids the reader to find what they are looking for, and we shouldn't depend on one single thing to help us find something in the text. Ctrl-F helps the reader quickly find whatever sentence it is they need. The double spacing however, is helpful to allow for spacing and ease of reading.
-Matt ^^
After reading your post about the MIT e-text version of Macbeth, I noticed the same differences that your group did, as well. For example, I agree that the layout is poorly done and that it omits many things, such as punctuation. On the other hand, it adds extra information, such as the Sergeant's exit. However, you should take a look at Bibliomania's version, as it is the complete opposite of MIT's version! Instead of removing punctuation, it adds them, which helped me read it flowingly. The layout is similar to your site's, but it is a lot less distracting and better organized. Finally, the Bibliomania version has stage directions not included in the Oxford version, but they provide context for the scene, rather than taking away from the mood. For example, the location of each scene is stated at the beginning, which helped me to better visualize the scene.
- A Thane of UTS (I.L.)
Post a Comment