Dear John,
I see your point and, of course, your opinion is always valuable. I will try to explain why I thought that this might be a good idea…
In my experience, textual critics, in general, have been taking for granted that digital editions are not fundamentally different from printed editions (I happen to agree with this position). In practical terms this means that we continue using the same rigorous methods to produce similar results which might be presented in a different medium. It seems that what has really changed is the speed at which we do things and the accuracy of or quantitative methods (computers are particularly good at sorting and classifying).
However, during last summer, I was confronted with a completely different perspective. At conferences such as SDSE and DH, I found a new breed of digital humanists who, without much training in textual scholarship, are placing themselves as central to the issues of digital editions. Moreover, I noticed that the overlap between the DH conference and STS, for example, is remarkably small. I recognise that not all textual scholars and editors are interested in using digital methods for research and publication, but I am surprised to see that scholars with a specialty in digital humanities are becoming gatekeepers of digital editions.
My fundamental problem arises from the so-called “social edition” (not to be confused with any concepts developed by McGann or McKenzie), embodied by the edition of the Devonshire Manuscript, which purports that editors are facilitators of texts and that editions can be made by a general open consensus loosely based on social media.
I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that many people who belong to this list and who are serious textual scholars, in the most strict sense, might find the discussions arising specifically from digital textual editing less than interesting. However, I would be happy if I were to find that I was wrong about that. The forum is, as always, open.
All the best,
BB
On 8 Apr 2014, at 15:25, John L. Bryant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Barbara and all,
> I think there is merit in the idea of setting up a separate list for digital editing, but I also fear that at a time when we need everyone in textual scholarship, regardless of methodology or technologies, talking in one forum, this second list might have the unintended consequence of segregating the conversation. For instance, separate spaces for "humanists" and "scholars" might suggest that we all are both. I would urge us to stick to one forum.
> yrs,
> John
>
> John Bryant, Professor of English
> Founding Editor, Leviathan: A Journal of Melville Studies
> Consulting Editor, The Melville Society, http://melvillesociety.org/
> Director, Melville Electronic Library
> Director, Hofstra Digital Research Center
> Mason 204, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549; Tel: 516.463.5470
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Textual Scholarship <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Bordalejo, Barbara <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: New List for Textual Scholarship and Digital Humanities
>
> Dear all,
>
> Last summer, I realised that there are many issues specifically related to digital editions, particularly the roles of digital humanists and textual scholars in the production of those editions. Our ideas of what texts are and they are perceived are somewhat different in digital editions.
>
> For these (and other reasons), I have created a separate list, TextualScholarshipDH, to discuss maters relating to digital textual scholarship.
>
> If you are interested, you can subscribe here: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=TEXTUALSCHOLARSHIPDH
>
> Alternatively, you can contact me privately and I will handle your subscription.
>
> All the best,
>
> BB
|