Hyperedition or archive?

I am a huge fan of digital humanities projects like McGann’s Rossetti archive, the William Blake archive, and others (I remember my excitement when the Blake archive was launched). Aesthetically, they’ve come a long way since 1997, and we now have the ability to create digital documents that look similar to the originals through better OCR technology and markdown. But the premise and the general operating procedure are the same now as then.

McGann’s intention was to promote hyperediting and hypertext in this essay, so perhaps it wasn’t the venue to approach these things more critically. Nevertheless, as a [former] literary scholar they raised some questions for me and I’m curious how other people in the class would respond. These pertain mostly to his discussion of individual hyperedited texts, rather than entire archives.

First of all, there is a strange irony in the idea that the most complete way to present a complex textual object, with sequential content and visual components, is as an immaterial, hyperedited set of files. His use of Emily Dickinson’s work as an example is interesting because, if anything, the handwritten, “made space” of her poems would seem to be best encountered on the physical page, perhaps in facsimile. If scholars want to get as close to what they believe to be the “author’s intent,” how can they justify an electronic edition that can only be experienced visually on a screen? Doesn’t that, in effect, completely efface whatever we can know of the author’s intent? (Considering that document markdown wasn’t yet possible in 1997, this particular example is even less convincing. I imagine it would have only been possible to present a static image of the page alongside the transcribed text.)

| | | Next → |

Correction: CUNY DH Lightning Talks, 11/7, 6pm (NOT 6:30pm)

The information in my earlier post was incorrect. I have since been told the Lightning Talks event starts at 6pm (NOT 6:30pm). Steve wants as many of you as possible to attend, so he’s planning to let class out early this Monday to accommodate the earlier start time.

It’s a great opportunity to see the range of projects being undertaken by GC students, and to see practical applications of some tools you’ll be exposed to in ITP Core 2. So plan to attend Monday’s Lightning Talks!!

CUNY DH Lightning Talks, 11/7, 6:30-8:30pm

Hi all,

The DH Lightning Talks event is this coming Monday. We moved that night’s skills lab so you could attend. If you are currently working on a project, consider signing up to give a talk. This from the organizers:

“The GC Digital Initiatives is organizing a second annual CUNY Digital Humanities Initiative event on November 7th at 6:30 – 8:30 PM in rooms 9202-9205 at The Graduate Center. The CUNY Digital Humanities Initiative is one opportunity to collect and to share the digital humanities efforts of graduate students, faculty, and staff across CUNY’s campuses. We welcome projects of all size, orientation, and perspective, and hope that through this community-building exercise, we can continue to foster a community of practice throughout our unique institution.

| | | Next → |

Beginner’s Guide to Twine

For those interested in creating their own games, here is a guide to making Twine games by a literature professor at SDSU.Twine is a tool to make interactive, non-linear stories. No coding chops are required; although some knowledge of HTML and CSS is helpful. Twine has a large community of women developers, and trans people are well represented too. To get an idea of what Twine can be like, see “Top free games tagged LGBT and Twine.”