Clarity at Last?!?!?!?
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1
Given everything that we have read thus far, I think it is safe to say that this latest piece by Golumbia et. Al takes the cake in terms of a viable, relatively complete -as far as I know!- history and definition attempt. The only author whose historical narrative of DH I vividly recall would be Terras way back when and even she did not go into as much detail, seemingly to focus more on the extremely recent past to present and not so much on the history of DH as it emerged from literary studies/ alongside it depending on how one chooses to view it/them.
With this article, I finally have the answers to the questions I have had all semester pertaining to DH, etc, or at least I have a much more solid sense of things than I did previously. What I mean is that I have a clearer sense of the definition of DH as well as the historical mandate for it. I am not sure if I agree with Columbia when he argues that DH is anti-interpretive… When I think back on my time as an RA and on the EWL project we did for this class, I seem to recall all of us doing a helluva lot of interpretation. We had to rephrase Ramsden, figure out whether brown spots on old books were mold, water damage, or a combination of the two, the list goes on. To reduce DH to nothing more than digitization, a lack of respect for the physical object itself is a little heart-wrenching to be honest because the reverence in which these texts were held is apparent from not only the way the pages are lovingly scanned and digitized, but also because those inky, slightly shiny matte scrawly things on a page mean something, they meant something to someone long before the scholar who is currently drawing on them for intellectual nourishment. Interpretation requires close reading, an ability to process things. To my mind, the decision to digitize a text by default means that you have interpreted it in some way….
In terms of the history of DH and its evolution as an offshoot of regular, normal Humanities, I very much enjoyed the “Big Bang” approach. This is also known as the “From Whence it All Began” method and is what it sounds like, an explosion of information about DH that propels us through nearly 70 years of history, from WWII to practically the present, describing the tensions that have always existed in relationship to other forms of scholarship. I have to say that not doing theory would be very welcome and that I can understand fully why UVA/DH resisted/ continues to resist because it has the tendency to be a real PITA and at times is unproductive.
I would simplify Columbia’s definition of DH and argue that it is simply a convenient and fun-filled way to undertake the scholarship you love without having to apply any theory. It’s literary studies as they were meant to be, the fusion of profound, deep respect and love for the past and its physical manifestations to the most intricate and complex technological advances.
One of the only matches I can think of that was actually made in heaven… What could be wrong with that?
I need to see you tie this material more closely to the text.
While you make several interesting and worthwhile points throughout this response, remember that I mentioned in class that I wanted to see everyone making concrete claims that are based on solid textual evidence.
You also don’t mention the authors by their names or refer to them directly throughout much of this post. Doesn’t it seem significant that this essay was not written merely by Golumbia, acting alone, but by a collaborative group of authors?