The Electronic Edition and Textual Criticism of American Musical Theatre
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2006 THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE Douglas Larue Reside University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Reside, Douglas Larue, "THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE" (2006). University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations. 350. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/350 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Douglas Larue Reside The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2006 THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Douglas Larue Reside Lexington, Kentucky Co-Directors: Dr. Walter Foreman, Associate Professor of English and Dr. Geraldine Maschio, Professor of Theatre Lexington, Kentucky 2006 Copyright © Douglas Larue Reside 2006 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE For many, contemporary theatre is represented by the musical. The form remains, however, virtually unstudied by literary scholars. In part, this may be a result of the difficulty of accessing the texts. Reading a musical from a traditional codex is no easy matter. The integration of text and music in a musical make it inappropriate to separate the two. One can try to follow along with a cast recording. In most cases, though, this is awkward. Many cast albums record a significantly modified version of the score and lyrics and few include the entire work. Further, musical theatre texts often exist in many different versions. This work begins with a summary of the problems one encounters when editing a multi-authored text (musicals often have a lyricist, librettist, and composer) which may be revised for practical (rather than aesthetic) reasons. The merits of restoring the material changed during the production process are debated. In this discussion some attempt is made to identify who should be considered the dominating collaborator (or auteur) of a musical. Ultimately, this dissertation argues that the notion of trying to restore an "authorial Ur-Text" makes little sense given the multitude of collaborators involved in the process of making musicals. Instead, an electronic variorum edition is presented as an alternative means of studying and teaching musical theatre texts. The study concludes with a narrative of the author’s own work on an electronic edition of the 1998 Broadway musical Parade and ends with a critical introduction to this text. KEYWORDS: Musical Theatre, Textual Criticism, Electronic Editions, Humanities Computing, Jason Robert Brown ___Douglas L. Reside___________________ ___31 July 2006_______________________ THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE By Douglas Larue Reside Dr. Walter Foreman __________________________________ Co-Director of Dissertation Dr. Geraldine Maschio __________________________________ Co-Director of Dissertation Dr. Yolanda Pierce __________________________________ Director of Graduate Studies 31 July 2006 __________________________________ RULES FOR THE USE OF DISSERTATIONS Unpublished dissertations submitted for the Doctor's degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgments. Extensive copying or publication of the dissertation in whole or in part also requires the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky. A library that borrows this dissertation for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature of each user. Name Date DISSERTATION Douglas Larue Reside The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2006 THE ELECTRONIC EDITION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF AMERICAN MUSICAL THEATRE DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Douglas Larue Reside Lexington, Kentucky Co-Directors: Dr. Walter Foreman, Associate Professor of English and Dr. Geraldine Maschio, Professor of Theatre Lexington, Kentucky 2006 Copyright © Douglas Larue Reside 2006 To My Marilyn ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply indebted to my co-chairs Dr. Walter Foreman and Dr. Geraldine Maschio. Both provided exceptionally prompt and insightful feedback on the many drafts of this dissertation. I greatly admire both of these scholars and hope one day to rise to the high level of teaching and scholarship they exemplify. I also wish to thank my original committee members, Dr. Jennifer Lewin and Dr. Michael Trask. Dr. Lewin’s encyclopedic knowledge of literary criticism better grounded this work in the existing scholarship. Dr. Trask’s thoughtful questions at outset of this project significantly redirected the course of my research. This is, by consequence, a much better work. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control, Dr. Trask was unable to sit on my final defense. I am therefore also grateful to Dr. Jonathan Allison for agreeing to fill Dr. Trask’s place at the last minute. Dr. Allison’s Bibliographic Methods course inspired this project and so it seemed appropriate that he be present at its fruition. I also greatly appreciate the willingness of my outside examiner, Dr. James C. Norton, for heroically stepping in to serve on my defense at the last moment when the previously assigned examiner was unable to attend. I would like to thank Jason Robert Brown and Stephen Schwartz both for their contributions to the art of musical theatre and for their generous assistance on this project. The included selections from personal interviews and emails are testimony to the depth of their insight and intelligence and of their uncommon willingness to freely offer time and assistance to a stranger. I would especially like to thank Mr. Brown and Alfred Uhry for their permission to construct my electronic edition of Parade. Finally, I must thank my wife Marilyn for always spurring me on to good works, and my parents for instilling in me the love of learning. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Textual Problems in Musical Theatre .................................................................... 7 Chapter 3: Questions of Auteurship ........................................................................................ 12 Chapter 4: Received Texts ........................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 5: A History of Electronic Editions........................................................................... 23 Chapter 6: Designing an Electronic Edition of Parade .......................................................... 30 Chapter 7: Critical Introduction to Parade............................................................................. 38 Genesis of the Project ............................................................................................................. 38 Creative Development ............................................................................................................ 42 Sources and Background........................................................................................................ 42 Reception ................................................................................................................................. 44 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 48 Act 1: Scene 1 ..................................................................................................................... 48 Act 1: Scene 2 ...................................................................................................................... 49 Act 1: Scene 3 ...................................................................................................................... 50 Act 1: Scene 4 ...................................................................................................................... 51 Act 1: Scenes 5-6.................................................................................................................. 51 Act 1: Scene 7 ..................................................................................................................... 52 Act 1: Scenes 8-10............................................................................................................... 52 Act 1: Scene 11 ..................................................................................................................