You Got Computer Science in my Humanities
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Eric Forcier comment about DH “as an ephemeral, seemingly idiosyncratic curiosity that either attracts or repels people, and often changes them fundamentally” (297). This statement reflects how DH mixes disciplines. To dive deep into DH, you have usually have to skim at least the surface of programming. I’m going to extend Forcier’s analogy about DH being an oil slick, but instead of it being on a highway, imagine it on water. The oil slick is now computer science and programming, but now it’s covering the ocean of digital humanities. Many people involved in DH eventually come to this point. When they dive into it to accomplish whatever they need to accomplish, they will be covered by this slick, no matter what they do. I think the reason DH changes people, is working in other disciplines, particularly computer science gives them a different way of looking at problem solving and terms used. Humanists might refer to James Joyce’s Ulysses as a difficult read. After being exposed to computer programming, they might say, “it’s non-trivial”.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 All of this boils down to defining digital humanities. I agree with the idea that the term digital humanities seems antiquated. When the idea of using technology to answer questions in the humanities was fresh and new back in the 80’s or 90’s this term was ok. Now it feels like an older person trying to sound hip. Mathew Carlos points out we don’t add the term digital to other disciplines using computers, so why should wb do it to humanities. I think it’s less important on how you do the work, whether it’s using a typewriter to draft your thesis, or collaborating with others to write a paper using google docs, or writing a program to analyze the works of Shakespeare. It matters less on the how and more of the what you have accomplished.
Props for a compelling title.