Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Golumbia Response
Golumbia likes to say that DH has no real place in the humanities. That it is a foreign group invading a group already settled in their ways. Golumbia says, “That literary scholars need not defer to DHers when deciding what work qualifies as part of our discipline and meets our own disciplinary standards.” Literary study […]
Responding to Golumbia
When Golumbia states, “We should reflect on the fact that of the tools and methods DH trumpets so prominently, few are part of the digital toolkit of most literary scholars today” (172), I think he misses the point of what the Digital Humanities is setting out to do. The reason “most literary scholars today” do […]
Golumbia Prompt
I haven’t ever questioned the term Digital or Humanities in respect to putting the words together to name a study. And, even after Golumbia’s article made its case at saying the terms are wrong, I’m still not convinced. Not everyone who writes an eBook or designs a blog is considered a digital humanist, and I […]
There’s always more Fish in the sea
Golumbia’s argument swayed me the most when he moved to his discussion of linguistics. He points out that many linguistic scholars use computers to aid their work, but they don’t define themselves as “digital linguists” as if they were doing something dinstinct. Golumbia notes that “attending linguistics conferences, one does not notice dramatic changes in […]
Golumbia Response-11/7
Digital Humanities uses the word “digital” as an adjective. The word digital is supposed to describe the type of humanities the field encompasses. Perhaps there could be a better name for what digital humanities does, but I think digital humanities is an apt name for the field. Because digital humanities is more of a methodology […]
Evolution: the basis of humanities
I think that the digital part to Digital Humanities is a bit broad and vague. The digital side to humanities is such a large topic that within the digital, you need to be more specific on what you mean by being digital in the Digital Humanities. What I mean by this is that You have […]
Golumbia Response
This series of questions makes me want to reevaluate all my thoughts before on DH. So good job on the questions! How does DH use the word digital? It took me a while to think about it and to realize how but the more I think about it, the more I realize that a lot […]
11/7 Golumbia Prompt
In “Death of a Dispciple”, David Golumbia notes that among conversations relating to Digital Humanities, the question of “What is it?” is often heard, suggesting that many people still do not understand what it is, what it does, nor how it relates to literary studies, despite the 10 plus years since its development. This, once […]
McGann Response [LS]
The discussion of subjects and objects by McGann is highly relevant to the tools we as digital humanists use. The way we interact with the humanities is a constantly changing and evolving sphere, especially when it involves the use of technology. We use DH as McGann says “to publish and to peer-review online – to […]
Response to Gannon and Anonymous
As far as my response to either of these pieces and taking sides with one, I’m not totally convinced by either side, however, given the issue, I don’t know that I would necessarily expect to be. As such, I don’t necessarily, feel inclined to take a side and I believe this is because the idea of […]
