McGann Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 McGann certainly has a more enthusiastic approach to the tools of digital humanities than other self-described “traditional” scholars. That stance coming from that of mastery rather than participation. McGann is sure to say, “Of people and of life events we are and always will be participants and students, never masters” (62). But of things, like tools, methods, and objects, we can master. McGann believes that professional humanists are particularly good at this, so we can see why the Swinburne line is appealing to him.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 McGann sets up this argument for mastery (or at least a wholehearted effort) of new tools and methods by briefly outlining history of literature studies. This outline of the past specifically includes a take on the troubled position of university publishing (pg. 54 is the place to go for that). McGann diagnoses other issues with scholastic publishing, in journals for instance. At the top of 56 the first part of the essay hits its turning point. “For traditional paper-based work, it is ‘the crisis in humanities’. For humanists who work with information technology, it is another form of that crisis.” That last line refers to the large amounts of work done in information technology that goes unrecognized by institutions, even the MLA.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 There seems to be no upsides for the humanist, but many like McGann agree that we need to adapt our fields to this new digital approach. In this essay, what it really comes down to is this: if the archival material and texts we practice our skills of literary and cultural analysis is in a digital realm, we need to also be trained in that digital realm. At certain moments McGann reads like a crotchety old man, lamenting the loss of traditional bibliography skills. Although to be sure he does not want to see a death to the humanities (or us mocked on CNN, or wherever). It seems though, overall, McGann wants to see us move forward while also utilizing the skills of the past. “Restoring intimate relations between literarians and librarians” (58) is one step, working with the systems engineers responsible for maintaining our library systems, another. Publishing is troubled, that is for sure. McGann cites that for many of us, it is hard to separate the publishing from the scholarship from the field itself. He seems hopeful that with enthusiasm funneled into the digital humanities, we might not be doomed.
“Enthusiasm” — yes. But I’d like to hear more details regarding the comparison you offer here. Are you comparing McGann to the other authors we’ve read so far this semester? If so, who? Who comes off as, comparably speaking, less “enthusiastic” (and why)?