For the project, we each focused on a subset of the theme of ‘a critical history.’ Following our own personal tastes, each member conducted individual research pertaining to their intended focus (e.g. contemporary reception to Melville’s piece, readings from alternative backgrounds). My focus began as the critical interpretation of slave narratives in relationship to the novella but, as my reading progressed, it developed into a more abstract look into how critics have approached the relationship of history and “Benito Cereno” and how Delano’s historical narrative has been progressively undermined by literary readings over the last few decades of criticism. While our annotations should ideally flush out this research, it suffices to summarize that the rising critical awareness of the injustice of slave revolt trials can be seen at play in the frequent omissions and alterations witnessed in Melville’s adaptation of the legal document that concludes the novella. Rather than serving as a ‘true’ interpretation of events, the document has been denigrated by criticism into yet another example of obscurity, power, and race dynamics, only this time being revealed more in our ‘real’ codified histories rather than fictional narratives.

Having time to evaluate the project, I hope I express a shared feeling of greater ease when comparing this product with the audio-book assignment. While, obviously, this assignment required personal effort and a sizable degree of critical thought, the fact that we were ultimately collecting and displaying available research seemed to reduce the critical burden. In creating the audio-book, the sheer question of ‘how?’ seemed to be overwhelming; our decisions would ultimately limit the possibilities of production and possibly entail critical interpretations that we would not be able to divine until likely too late. Yet, for the annotation assignment, one did not feel such a ‘burden of choice.’ True, we were ultimately limiting ourselves with our selections. (What if I had not chosen to use Coulson’s essay on slave narratives? My annotations would have gone a different route. A new edition would have existed.) But, our selections would not limit the reading itself. The benefit of annotations is that they exist in the margins, that they are not direct impediments to our traditional routes of reading but, rather, accessories for the reader to use, or not use, as they may.

Complementing this relief was our selection of publishing: we decided to use Manifold for our annotations. As the application hides annotations and resources until a user chooses to engage with them, our annotations took on a more laissez faire aspect. What if the critical insights I provided were haphazard? The reader can simply ignore. What if someone knew a critical argument that made this theory unfounded? They could simply reply. Such an ephemeral nature of annotation, while understandably open to abuse in a public setting, relieved even the financial and personal costs of a traditional annotated edition. It permitted us the freedom to simply “play” with the readings of the text, comfortable that we were simply engaging, not providing definitive readings.