Mail (will not be published) (required)
September 21, 2016 at 11:55 pm
What is the likelihood that such editorial structures will in fact be created, especially in the field of academia? Who will create these editorial structures? Will they be restricted to universities or archives or will they be public forums akin to social media?
See in context
March 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm
I wish this paragraph had been the starting point of the discussion. The article was informative with great links (those that worked) to inspiring projects and a somewhat technical discussion, but what I really would have wanted to read about is the idea of “spatial thinking” and why it matters to the humanities, not only from a philosophical perspective but also a cognitive one. I should disclose that I teach Italian Studies and I am interested in both literary and linguistic aspects of this question. Thank you.
February 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm
The controversial thing that comes because of web 2.0 is the blurred line between author and user. It is beneficial in the way that it web 2.0 gets everyone involved in a text, but detrimental in the way that with several authors and multiple intentions the original author may get lost in the text.
January 28, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Fascinating reading of the ambivalent role of “writerly” reader on dynamic pages, especially via provocative example of shopping!
January 20, 2016 at 7:56 pm
Such a digital rendering has usurped the author’s authority over the work by allowing readers to elaborate upon characters. While such a rendering is to be applauded for its experimental qualities and what must be some comedic dialogue. There is also a danger inherent here to authorship itself, that writing (even digital text) can be manipulated in ways unintended. Whether this is a danger we need to be apprehensive or a progression we should be aware us, is up for debate.
January 20, 2016 at 7:45 pm
While Liu sees the possibility of synthesis between literary scholarship and social computing, he also reiterates that one cannot be simply adopted but rather, the literary scholar has to undergo the process of learning – to not just assimilate digital text into their work but legitimately learn a new area of study.
January 20, 2016 at 7:39 pm
You can see this need for contemporary Literature to adopt the “cool” or “passionate” ethos in the mountainous terrain of internet “clickbait” and literary adverting that has dominated online publication.
It is an unfortunate fact that this “cool” factor adopts more of an audience than the well researched and more “honest” post. Stranger still is that this drawn audience will evoke the “wisdom of crowds” where bigger viewcounts/followers will be mistakenly translated to more authority and truth.
January 20, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Reading and writing communities have been established long ago, as Liu relinquishes but could you not go back even further than the 18th and 10th century and regard the Greek Symposium as an example where works were read in communal fashion, responded to immediately at times and even changed as a result of its reception?
January 20, 2016 at 7:25 pm
My understanding here is that Liu wants us not to conceive of the literary act of reading, termed the transmission, but the medium in which we process reading, the book, or the electronic ballad, or even the oral culture.
Perhaps Liu is displacing the emphasis on reading as a textual process and hoping to reduce the connotations of reading with paper text. Thereby, broadening reading to other mediums, specifically digital text.
January 20, 2016 at 7:05 pm
Social computing belongs to Web 2.0 and can be distinguished from previous iterations because of the bidirectional network and the unified community that has transcended the commercial relationship of user/buyer and website/seller of the Web 1.5 that Liu distinguished as commercially initiated and the Web 1.0 that was privately partitioned (isolated).
Modern Language Association
85 Broad Street, suite 500
New York, NY 10004-2434