Trask-McGann Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 For McGann, the relationship/bond between humanists and the objects they choose to study-texts, artifacts, etc. is a practically unbreakable one given that one cannot properly exist without the other. What would humanists as subjects/inventors & main attractions have to pass their days with if it wasn’t for their close study of the things/software prototypes (objects) left behind and the methods employed to glean the most meaning and significance? If the humanities keep refusing to adapt to DH and DOSS (Digital Open-Source Scholarship), and by extension refuse to learn how to use the tools they now have at their disposal, then McGann would say that they are doomed to remain in the shadows while more techie, STEMesque fields garner more and more of the international, academic, and public spotlights.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 Mcgann masterfully manipulates us into thinking that his article is going to be about preserving the textual and bibliographic rigor that he encountered in his own graduate program as the first two pages or so he does some lamenting that his students at UVA have as of late had an inability to adequately discuss the reasoning behind their choices of texts as well as editions when taking doctoral exams. But just after that, he switches gears and begins wondering what the future of the humanities will be if we do not change right alongside the structure that could be seen as the epitome of all that we do: the library. Libraries will shortly be digital powerhouses, everything that humans hold dear can for the most part be digitized and made available for everyone to see, touch, and have a meaningful interaction with, but the humanities have remained somewhat behind in this regard not only because of the issues pertaining to legitimate vs illegitimate scholarship, but also the lack of public scholarship, the self- confining of their work to the Ivory Tower and those who live in it. The inability to procure enough funding to catch up with the times and scholarly trends is also an issue for humanists as they can’t afford the upfront, short term high costs that it would take to upgrade their equipment as well as the ways we do things. McGann proposes that in order to survive, humanists must learn not only how to use these fancy-shmancy programs, but also to create, distribute, and teach them to other scholars in the humanities. This will get rid of the immediate need for funds if everyone knows how to use the software. (Or so I think…)
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 3 McGann’s proposal of a program called NINES ( Network Infrastructure for Nineteenth Century Electronic Scholarship) seeks to put an end to the lack of desire on the part of humanists to integrate technology into their research because of the perception that such an instrument of potential witchcraft couldn’t possibly be of any benefit to their line of scholarly inquiry. Apparently NINES failed which saddens me because I was stoked on the concept when I read about it and looked it up in the hopes of doing something similar.
Absolutely, good point.
Yes. I like your characterization of the “bond” between subject and object here, and think it gets at the heart of what McGann is arguing via his reference to Swinburne.