3,714 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2016
    1. Meanwhile, in almost exactly the same decades that the Internet arose and eventually evolved social computing, literary scholarship followed similar principles of decentralization to evolve cultural criticism.7

      Wow. This is the most interesting statement that I've read in a while. Wish I could pin an annotation...

      Really helps me justify my career arc, turning from literary criticism as a career to software "development."

    2. online commerce sites wanted customers to write in credit card numbers, mailing addresses, product reviews, and so on.

      So the active readership of web 2.0 is directly linked to the consumerism of the commercial web?...

      I'm so interested in the implications here: the democratization of the web, the breakdown of author/reader, producer/consumer (of knowledge), is rooted in capitalism?

    3. author now really did require technical assistance,

      Web 1.5 changes authorship only slightly from print model

    4. so readers used their version of Web forms

      Web 1.5 changed readership radically

    5. not just generally to ICT (information and communication technologies) but specifically to social-computing technologies

      And to literature itself!

    6. the contemporary form of the human need to say something well (memorably, persuasively, movingly, beautifully, wittily, and so on) to someone else.

      Does level of deliberation (or craft), say between a novel and a Tweet, matter here?

    1. traditional narrative time line vanishes

      I'm interested in hypertext (and annotation) before this point, before fully rupturing the narrative, but somehow co-existing with it...

    2. Of course, through print's long history, there have been countless strategies to counter the line's power, from marginalia and footnotes

      Interesting to think of annotation and hypertext in a lineage of digital technologies that disrupt (sorry) the linearity of text.

    1. Marginalia — with its social thrill of shared immersion — is what the culture is moving toward, not away from. We are living increasingly in a culture of response. Twitter is basically electronic marginalia on everything in the world: jokes, sports, revolutions.

      Social media/Twitter as annotation

    2. You could even “subscribe” to your favorite critic’s marginalia

      Genius has this.

    3. the ability to import not just your friends’ notes but notes from all of history’s most interesting book markers.

      friends v famous readers

    4. public note sharing for the Kindle — Coleridgean fantasy software that will make your friends’ notes appear (if you want them to) directly on your own books.

      Not exactly how it has played out in the Kindle I don't think.

    5. a grand vision of the future of social reading. I imagined a stack of transparent, margin-size plastic strips containing all of my notes from “Infinite Jest.” These, I thought, could be passed out to my friends, who would paste them into their own copies of the book and then, in turn, give me their marginalia strips, which I would paste into my copy, and we’d all have a big virtual orgy of never-ending literary communion.

      Sounds about right.

    6. What I really want is someone rolling around in the text. I want noticing.

      Desire for social reading...

    7. might end up serving equally well as a bridge between online and literary culture, between focus and distraction:

      Konnikova argues so much more recently in the New Yorker.

    8. Yet books are curious objects: their strength is to be both intensely private and intensely social — and marginalia is a natural bridge between these two states.

      books as social or private

    9. Old-school marginalia was — to put it into contemporary cultural terms — a kind of slow-motion, long-form Twitter, or a statusless, meaning-soaked Facebook, or an analog, object-based G-chat.

      Great line.

    10. According to the marginalia scholar H. J. Jackson, the golden age of marginalia lasted from roughly 1700 to 1820. The practice, back then, was surprisingly social

      Annotation always already social.

    11. recent wave of public teeth-gnashing about the future of marginal notes.


    12. Texts that really grabbed me got full-blown essays (sideways, upside-down, diagonal) in the margins.

      The potential for digital marginalia to literally be essay-like.

    13. a way to not just passively read but to fully enter a text, to collaborate with it, to mingle with an author on some kind of primary textual plane.

      Precisely: annotation as active reading. But also as discourse with text/author.

    14. marking up books, I’m pretty sure, is one of the Seven Undying Cornerstones of Highly Effective College Studying.


    15. The author argued that you didn’t truly own a book (spiritually, intellectually) until you had marked it up.

      I definitely feel the same way, both as a scholar and a teacher (in terms of forcing the same principle on my students). And I'd go farther to expand the definition of ownership here to include comprehension and critical engagement.

    1. It is not possible to "capture" your notes and highlights, to organize, compile, arrange, or to print them out. Until there is a seamless way to do this, marginalia will remain sequestered in the margins, and the promise of electronic books will be unrealized"

      Got you there, JD.

    2. One of the great things about the new Web is that you can manipulate text, but the iPad treats you like a child.
    1. we should carry the annotations to the readers, to whatever version of the text (print, online) they happen to have in front of them. Ideas of how to do so are currently being developed.

      At hypothes.is, for example, through our research on and development of a mechanism for document equivalency.

    2. As Wido van Peursen has pointed out, “In the digital age, annotation is a completely new field, which includes not only traditional scholarly commentary, but also social tagging, blog comments, and comments solicited via specialised software” (20).

      Ok, definitely have to read this guy--second reference that evoked an "amen" here--though he actually cites Zafrin here...

    3. textual comprehension that is transhistorical, transcultural, and transgeneric.

      Why should it? Isn't supporting the intense and intimate locatedness of various a reading communities one of the most powerful aspects of annotating digital text?

    4. textual comprehension and “reading literacy” as a key competence.18

      Not really elaborated on here or in the note, but curious about this statement in relation to debates around the Common Core in US public education...

    5. The Text and Its Communicative Context

      Some of my biggest issues with this article crystalize in this section.

    6. Comprehension does not mean the passive perusal of a text but rather the appropriation of that text in the readerly practice—for instance, when readers link the text to their personal experiences or situations in life. Because annotation usually provides readers with an interpretation not of a complete text but of its particular aspects, the active participation of readers is enhanced.

      Meh. What about letting students annotate the text themselves with such responses? Might scholarly annotation even silence such responses rather than occasion them?

    7. Literary texts, which are not usually pragmatic in any specified sense, are so positioned through annotation.

      Through the given definition of annotation, yes. But this is part of what I think is unfortunate about this model: it's too utilitarian in its approach to the literary text, not to mention the student reader.

      The focus is wholly on comprehension rather than conversation or experience. As such it is product rather than process oriented. The text/reader/community as they emerge in the act of reading is what is most interesting (IMHO) about collaborative annotation.

    8. ongoing working platform.

      If we are to restrict our notion of annotation to the explanatory, this potential for dynamism on the part of the text/reader/scholar is perhaps the most valuable addition of digital annotation to traditional practice.

    9. To address situational needs, we have arranged annotations on three levels: brief information (a survey, pointers); more detailed information, including facts and figures; and scholarly context (ideas for future research, indications of debates).

      Would be interesting to test these multilevel categories in our first attempts at controlled tagging.

    10. What is at stake is to find a definition of annotation in its explanatory sense and its relation to interpretation (see the definition of annotation vs. discursive comment in Zafrin 209; Zons).

      Again, I think the discursive mode of annotation is far more interesting to think about. Not sure why this distinction is made here...

    11. All too often, textual notes are nothing but “the enrichment of a text by information that is in the head of the human researcher” (Peursen 12).

      Yes! Enough of scholarly commentary, at least as traditionally imagined. What of citizen-scholarly commentary, what of questions, comments, less expertly formed?

      I think Sam Anderson best captures this idea of annotation in an NYTimes Magazine "riff": "What I really want is someone rolling around in the text."

    12. Such integration allows for a creative and individual annotation that is productive for a reader

      By whom?!

    13. how to balance the notion of an open and readerly text (as emphasized by Spiro [24]; see also Gervais; Klemm; and Vandendorpe) with hermeneutical principles


    14. since we get instant feedback from our readers about the text and explanatory notes

      So students are NOT annotating themselves?

    15. Different texts and readers need different annotations and different kinds of annotation, and the digital medium can meet those needs more easily than the print medium.11


    16. annotations serve to transmit knowledge and understanding about texts and their content.

      "Transmitting" knowledge or exploring knowledge?

    17. What kinds of styles or genres require explanation?

      Certainly some texts/genres lend themselves to annotation/are easier to annotate. But, again, hasn't contemporary cultural criticism argued that really any text might be read closely in different kinds of ways?

    18. how readerly comprehension of texts may be enhanced

      The focus on "enhancement" is a common fantasy of technology. It is consistent with fantasies of surveillance that emphasize the pervasiveness or depths of vision...

      ...I'm wondering what it would mean to replace the emphasis on "enhancement" with the idea of "engagement."

    19. New forms of collaboration made possible by the digital medium sharpen the theoretical question of how explanatory authority is established.

      This is really the most interesting aspect of annotation and the digital humanities (to me at least). And it's not really addressed here. The unlimited space of writing online is less of a problem/potential than the lack of limits on who participates in the conversation.

      It'd be interesting to see an academic treatment of reputation systems online and how they do or don't promote democratic knowledge production.

  2. Dec 2015
    1. If one loves literature, I think, one now has to be willing to go speculatively where the language of passionate life goes, especially among the young, who will carry on the cool literary adventure.17

      I'm there!

    2. it is there in the epic of all the social-news, shared-bookmark, or similar sites that build a portrait of collective life from constantly reshuffled excerpts, links, and tags from that life akin to Homeric formulae.

      Still loving this...

    3. at present only a colloquial approximation (if that) of high literate language or literary sensibility.

      But from a pedagogical perspective this is the same kind of writing that drives the scholar-teacher day to day.

    4. the stake for literary studies in the digital age is not first of all technological. It is to follow the living language of human thought, hope, love, desire—and hate too—wherever it goes and wherever it has the capacity to be literary, even if the form, style, or grammar of such literariness does not always conform to canonical standards.

      Wow! I love this.

    5. Why should contemporary literary scholarship take an interest in contemporary social computing? How should it take an interest?

      Great questions!

    6. The real action is in the sidebar that unfurls
    7. repopulate the sparse, lite model of literary activity
    8. redistributed the weights in the core circuit of literary social activity
    9. Today, the margin is the “sidebar” of such social-computing sites as blogs, where all the blog rolls, track-backs, and other signs of the vitality of communal communications manifest.

      So cool...

    10. annotators,

      Annotators privileged in meaning making.

      Study of/support of...

    11. common will to decentralize or democratize the traditional understanding of literary sociality I above called the core circuit of “authors, publishers, readers (and interpreters) mediated by documents”

      This was my dominant understanding of lit criticism (and pedagogy) as a grad student.

    12. What writers thought they were doing in writing texts, or printers and booksellers in designing and publishing them, or readers in making sense of them are issues which no history of the book can evade.

      Great stuff!

    13. balladmongers

      great word

    14. the new-historicist dream of jaywalking or being a hyperactive subject

      Great line.

    15. Or, again, there was Michel de Certeau’s “practice of everyday life,” which envisioned a “tactical” active reader analogous to a jaywalking pedestrian taking it on his own authority to walk a path different from any official A to Z.

      Look into de Certeau's definition of reader

    16. rebalancing the weights of the nodes in the core circuit so that the previous value placed on what Foucault called the “author function” diminished.

      Foucault Death of Author=birth of the coauthor/active reader/etc.

    17. Why not give readers Web-input pages similar to those used by authors so that they can write more fluently into the identical database, thus effectively allowing readers to become prolific commentators and actual coauthors?

      Image Description

    18. About the time of the 2000 dot-com bust, it dawned on a new generation of Web application developers that the data architecture I have called Web 1.5 could be tapped in new ways.

      Fascinating historical timeline I hadn't grasped before.

    19. when a reader clicked on a link to request content, an output template, or theme page—actually, a clustered series of files with HTML for Web formatting, scripting code for talking to databases, cascading style sheets for fine-tuning layout and styling, and JavaScript for active client behaviors—extracted material from the database, formatted it on the fly in the predesigned template, and delivered the overall construction to the reader.2


    20. no actual crossing on the early Web between the roles of author and reader, because the information delivery system partitioned those roles from each other, leaving any change in the reading act quarantined at the reader’s station.


    21. the reader using a personal computer acquired an unprecedentedly active role, as envisioned by such early hypertext theorists as George Landow,

      Web has always been making active readers from the start?

    22. Web 1.0 structured a transmission act that seemed to map well over print publication.

      i.e. this is not the social web 2.0?

    23. recover within them, with fresh force, a broader repertoire of historical literary functions than modern literary studies usually needs to attend to.

      anew vs recover

    1. Make it open source, cheap, and true alternatives to the pre-packaged learning management systems that had hijacked innovation.

      Right on!

    1. a tool to think with, not a tool to publish with.

      I like this distinction a lot. Emphasizes process v product.

    2. You could build these sort of systems in WordPress, Pinboard, Scalar, whatever.

      Using h in part?

    3. And immediately you are notified of all pages named this, and presented with a list of pages those pages link to.

      I'm dense, but how is this different from a search engine?

    4. conversation

      Still unclear to me how this term is being used...

    5. There’s a billion people posting what they think about crap on Facebook. There’s about 31,000 active wikipedians that hold English Wikipedia together. That’s about the population of Stanford University, students, faculty and staff combined, for the entire English speaking world. We should be ashamed. We really should.

      Great quote.

    6. In 2015, out of nowhere, we saw web annotation break into the mainstream. This is a garden technology that has risen and fallen so many times, and suddenly people just get it. Suddenly web annotation, which used to be hard to explain, makes sense to people. When that sort of thing happens culturally it’s worth looking closely at.

      Right on. What's the evidence of this mainstream, though?

    7. The web not as a reconfigurable model of understanding but of sealed shut presentations.

      Ummm, not so sure about this. There of course is a sealedness to the streaming web--especially in that it's hard if not impossible to extract the data. But anyone who's on Facebook knows that statements are replied to and conversation start and understanding is challenged, reproduced, etc.

    8. conversational trail (a sort of “read this if you want to understand what I am riffing on” link) instead of associations of ideas.

      Not sure I see the distinction.

    9. The majority of links in the memex are made by readers, not writers. On the world wide web of course, only an author gets to determine links.


    10. link here is not part of the author’s intent, but of the reader’s analysis.

      Hyperlinks need to be divided into genres. Those produced by editors and authors are ultimately not that radical or at least different from those we might find in the pages of a book.

      Image Description

      Hyperlinks (and annotations) created by writers, now that's something else entirely. That's like David Foster Wallace's annotated copy of Don DeLillo's Players (house at the HRC), as opposed to a copy easily bought at a bookstore.

    11. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him.

      How can annotation do this? Again, I come back to a tagging or foldering system needed to bring some coherence to the process of annotation...

    12. In the stream metaphor you don’t experience the Stream by walking around it and looking at it, or following it to its end. You jump in and let it flow past. You feel the force of it hit you as things float by.

      This is such a powerfully visceral description of different experiences of the web.

    13. “web as space”

      ...text as space. To inhabit. Via annotation. (Jennifer Howard in Chronicle article.)

    14. the garden and the stream

      This is, I believe, a smart reworking of a much reworked archetype in American studies: the machine in the garden analogy of Leo Marx:

      Image Description

    15. the predominant form of the social web — that amalgam of blogging, Twitter, Facebook, forums, Reddit, Instagram — is an impoverished model for learning and research and that our survival as a species depends on us getting past the sweet, salty fat of “the web as conversation” and on to something more timeless, integrative, iterative, something less personal and less self-assertive, something more solitary yet more connected.

      I'll be curious to see how "conversation" is the problem here, rather than the proprietary, closed nature of these platforms.

    16. the way in which we collaborate on the web,

      But the above anecdote isn't collaboration. It's personal note-taking. What happens when--and how does--someone else enter the picture?

    17. simple knowledge that builds complexity through linking.

      Could this be accomplished through annotation?

      IMHO, yes. Though in the case of hypothes.is, I need a better way to view/organize my annotations...

    1. how does annotation affect the way readers read and understand a text?

      How do readers effect the way a text is annotated and understood?

    2. but literary texts work differently.

      Hasn't cultural criticism moved beyond this literary exceptionalism? (The authors later aspire to interdisciplinary application of their methodology, so one would hope so.)

    3. the practice of annotation was rather difficult, because of the lack of a theory of literary annotation.

      Really? It seems like there's such a rich tradition to build upon at least in terms of models. I could edit a Norton edition of several novels without a manual on annotation.

    4. establish certain methodologies, which will in turn require some conceptual clarification as to why a text should be annotated—in other words, a theory of annotation

      I'm more worried about the product/feature side of the future for digitally edited/editable texts.

    5. student peer-learning project

      This is the coolest part of the project, but one the authors speak very little about. It seems the labor of expert commentary was just farmed out to students.

    6. explanatory annotation

      The limited definition of annotation/commentary is not unacknowledged. It's a clear starting point for the authors.

    7. establishes or promotes specific interpretations.

      Yuck. This especially seems limiting: emphasis on a singularity of meaning seems extra-traditional.

    8. Commentary as a practice of annotation that not only helps readers comprehend a text but also facilitates its critical evaluation elucidates the relevance of the text for a particular readership and establishes or promotes specific interpretations.

      I think like we're working with a very limited (even if acknowledged) definition of commentary/annotation. We're really just talking about expert analysis laid over a text, which is nothing new, though as pointed out below this tradition can achieve a new dynamism in the online environment.

      What I think is more interesting about annotation and the digital humanities is the potential for readers themselves to become truly active contributors to the knowledge surrounding the texts--not simply served explanation for their relatively passive comprehension.

    9. Whipping Boys Explained: Literary Annotation and Digital Humanities

      From the start, the framework for thinking about annotation is "explanation." To me this is problematic. For if the digital humanities is to truly leverage the open, democratic potential of the Web, it must not merely explain, offer information in the same uni-directional format that knowledge has been "produced" throughout much of history. Annotation as it happens has the potential to be one of the main tools through which to disperse the agency of knowledge production.

    10. Commentary

      Very different understanding of this word from its everyday use on the Internet. Online, commentary is more typically imagined as far less authorial or editorial, problematically, but also democratically so.

    11. commentary aims at situating a text and its objects communicatively through explanation.

      Again, this seems a limited understanding of annotation. Situating a text is a very traditional scholarly act. The process of locating it might be focused on as something more emergent, democratic, and discursive.

    1. OER even found support at the federal level in 2015, with the US Department of Education hiring Andy Marcinek in September to be its first ever “open education adviser”

      Very interesting...

    2. a resistance to the mainstream ed-tech industry, suspicion about institutional power, a DIY sensibility.

      Right on.

    3. Caulfield’s keynote: “The Garden and the Stream: A Technopastoral.”

      This is a great talk and one that situates annotation as a "garden tool" (versus stream tool like Facebook).

    4. “templated self.”

      Great phrase, but don't people love templates? Isn't every restaurant menu or clothing store a kind of template preferred to making your own meals or clothes?

    5. University of Mary Washington, but at Davidson College, the University of Oklahoma, Brigham Young University, and elsewhere – including high schools.

      Potential partners in "Annotate in all Classrooms"...

    6. thanks to Indie Web startups like Known and Hypothes.is,

      Hadn't seen this mention of h yet by Audrey Watters. We're "Indie Ed-Tech"!

    7. it supports students and teachers and schools in managing their own infrastructure, their own labor, their own data.

      Ok, so is hypothes.is doing this? How can it?

      • my annotations must be better accessible/organizable --the current "My Annotations" is not enough

      • annotation must be exportable

    8. The principles of IndieWebCamp,

      Check it out...

    9. “learn-to-code” efforts (which as I’ve argued elsewhere are more about what employers want than they are about what students need).


    10. ed-tech as data-extraction, control, surveillance, privatization, and profiteering
    1. But I remain inside Facebook, and it continues to broadcast what I might like.

      Wow, this is totally the DFW fantasy of Infinite Jest.

    2. Are we witnessing a decline of reading on the web in favour of watching and listening?

      I'm not particularly worried about this.

    3. When Facebook can know us better than our parents with only 150 likes, and better than our spouses with 300 likes, the world appears quite predictable, both for governments and for businesses.


    4. what about the unique web address for my social network profile?

      Hadn't thought about this.

    5. I might be able to download my posts

      Would you?

    6. That’s how Isis is recruiting and growing.

      Wow. Blaming "the stream" of social media for ISIS! How does that square with the celebration of social media as democratizing force in the Arab Spring?...

    7. Algorithms have picked everything for you. According to what you or your friends have read or seen before, they predict what you might like to see. It feels great not to waste time in finding interesting things on so many websites. But what are we exchanging for efficiency?

      I get how algorithms can be abused and problematize knowledge production or discovery. But is there such a thing as a benevolent algorithm? Certainly there are some benefits to the data analysis that goes into reading my social activity and networks for "recommendations." Netflix has steered me right more than a few times in this regard.

    8. Apps like Instagram are blind, or almost blind.

      But what about Facebook? I'm constantly linking (sort of) to other content via Facebook posts.

    9. in the world of webpages, gaze functions differently: it is more empowering.

      Interesting subversion of the academic trope of the gaze. Though I'm not sure sight is the best analogy for the power of the hyperlink.

    10. cul-de-sacs of social media

      Great phrase.

    11. But links are not objects, they are relations between objects. This objectivisation has stripped hyperlinks of their immense powers.

      Devaluing of the hyperlink in "the Stream" (i.e. Facebook). Because it becomes an end in and of itself rather than a bridge to another place? Facebook doesn't want you to leave Facebook.

    12. The hyperlink was a way to abandon centralisation – all the links, lines and hierarchies – and replace them with something more distributed, a system of nodes and networks.

      Hyperlink as decentralization.

    13. There were no real apps, certainly not how we think of them today. There was no Instagram, no SnapChat, WhatsApp. Instead, there was the web, and on the web, there were blogs: the best place to find alternative thoughts, news and analysis.

      The transition away from the Web to apps is one I keep seeing lamented among the old school Internet activists.

    14. An influx of new, shamelessly luxurious condos had replaced the charming little houses I was familiar with.

      Sounds familiar: Austin, DC, Brooklyn.

    1. it is easier to read Ulysses than it is to read the Internet.

      Great line. What does this mean for the state of the humanities?...

    2. The stream is winding its way throughout the Web and organizing it by nowness."

      Perhaps hypothes.is should organize its "stream" by document (and tag) in resistance to the Stream? I for one want to view my annotations by doc and have the ability to organize my docs into folders.

    1. Works everywhere that learning takes place

      You have to!

    1. General notes on stream:

      • sorted by text (not annotation)

      • tags used on text listed

      • tags link to stream sorted by tag

      • most recent annotation nested?--annotations on doc should be collapsable/expandable

    2. Page level notes:

      • General description of group, including an icon.

      • Easy to get the content via RSS.

      • Easily sortable stream: recent, popular, filter...

      • tag "cloud"--tags link to text with tags

      • list of members (with avatars)

    1. community Diigo group.

      What would it take to use hypothes.is instead?

    2. "Read a lot in the writings that were part of the early stages of the design of the Internet," Campbell said. "It's very aspirational stuff. There were dreams that were at the heart of what formed this digital environment." Reaching back to the Internet's earliest days, he noted, will help higher education advocates understand that the culture of a university should be about more than content or course delivery.

      hashtag vannevar

    1. "between-ness centrality" — those individuals who become "hubs" and connect with others on a frequency that's greater than others, becoming, in some ways, "poster people" for integrated thinking and connective learning.

      How could we measure this in Hypothes.is?

    2. how many connections are made through a Twitter stream at the beginning of a course as opposed to the end of the course?

      Could map this with annotations too...

    3. the way the instructor's presence could be made almost tangible within the environment

      Annotation really does this.

    4. "We're trying to make the network explicit," he said, "to help students demonstrate the connections they're making as they move through curriculum, as they begin to get these higher-order thinking skills."
    1. e-portfolio, documenting their work

      Again, hypothes.is needs to make e-portfolios of annotation (and bookmarking) better.

    2. students to continue to use the blogs, Web sites and social media tools as they advance through their collegiate careers.

      Cross-course, multi-year tool.

    3. "Rampages" (named after VCU's mascot, the Ram)

      Ok, so Tressie and Jon have been using h herein.

    4. tweeting

      "Tweeting." It's a company. A VC-funded one.

    1. the hostile environments so many experience when it comes to experimenting locally with ed-tech versus an almost infantile trust in our corporate overlords when it comes to outsourcing.

      How are both these things happening at the same time, though?

    2. little to no impact on the tech giants to which many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities blissfully outsource their innovation.

      There must be some kind of other disconnect here, though. I've always been asked about FERPA--mostly by teachers and professors who have in turn been pressured by administrators. Surely this must enter into conversations with Google Pearson, et al.

    3. What constitutes an education record is a bit blurry, making FERPA the bat it has become internally to shut down most conversations about sharing publicly on the web.

      Yeah, this is the problematic side effect of FERPA: it works against public use of the open web, a skill necessary for our students to practice.

    1. Learn to take ownership and control over the content you put on the web instead of handing it to third-party publishers.

      Such an admirable principle/mission. I wonder though whether this will ever be part of a larger cultural turn? Or even if it will be a major part of 21st century digital pedagogy?...

    1. duplicate a multidimensional viewpoint.

      Authentic or enhanced experience of viewer?

    2. same messiness and doubt that make the complexities of concepts like race, gender, class, and culture most immediately relevant also remind us that the products of our technologies, our devices, always fall short of our perceived notions of the real or the authentic.

      Good line.

    3. “the need to ‘bridge’ a gap between automated computational analysis and interpretive reasoning that must make allowances for doubt, uncertainty, and/or multiple possibilities”

      human and machine interwoven

    4. “there was never clear separation between past and present, traditional and digital, or other bounded concepts” and that “[m]any of the researchers interviewed for this study assiduously avoided making such distinctions” (10).

      Good quote re false binary of new and old technologies of interpretation, etc.

    5. binary between “old” (i.e., human) versus “new” (i.e., computational) practices

      A binary worthy of breaking down...

    6. because the underlying patterns are difficult to discern with close reading.

      Moving too close to supplanting rather than supplementing?

    7. ask why we as close readers have found some patterns and yet left others undiscovered.

      Is this really the ultimate goal?

    8. understanding why a pattern occurs and determining whether it is one that offers insight into a text requires technologies of self-reflective inquiry.

      Computer assisted practices never completely divorced from the human.

    9. we are constantly met with interfaces (such as the card catalog) that reflect real structures with real people (with all of their quirks and fallibilities and imaginative wonderfulness) in real institutions reminds us how material and constructed (how situated) is the context in which the reader accesses and analyzes cultural content with text analysis, data mining, and visualization methodologies.

      Web, digital literacy...

    10. any database is the result of an interface between a person and an archive:

      There can't be anything inhuman?

    11. an ex-static archive, of an archive not assembled behind stone walls but suspended in a liquid element behind a luminous screen; the archive becomes a virtual repository of knowledge without visible limits, an archive in which the material now becomes immaterial. (ii)

      Is this a layered, annotatable archive, like a finely tuned kaleidoscope?

    12. computer-assisted methodologies such as text analysis, visualizations, and data mining are just such tools, but they often provide the view the magnifying glass gives the user when he or she turns it upside down. These methodologies defamiliarize texts,

      Are computer-assisted tools automatically reverse magnifying glasses? Isn't the basic fantasy of computer assistance the 2.0 of magnification or "enhancement"?


    13. self-consciousness, access, and collaboration in humanist inquiry as technologies.

      Demystifying (and conflating) "technology" by applying it to the most humanist of practices.

    14. Unsworth, John M.

      Get serious about reading this dude.

    15. Liu poses a challenge to digital humanities scholars to show how these methodologies—which Franco Moretti and others have called “distant reading”—compare with and contribute to more traditional close reading practices (27).

      Read this essay (and Moretti's)...

    16. scholars should and do neglect using digital applications that aid interpretation because most of these tools seem too objective or deterministic—digital tools seem to take the “human” (e.g., the significance of gender, race, class, religion, sexuality, and history) out of literary study.

      Bias against tech tools in humanities.

  3. luminarydigitalmedia.com luminarydigitalmedia.com
    1. Share your notes immediately to a Facebook discussion group.

      Image Description

      The social reading experience here could be infinitely better than "share to a FB group."

    1. “distant reading”: understanding literature not by studying particular texts, but by aggregating and analyzing massive amounts of data.

      Nothing against this, but it's not the game I'm in.

      Question is, though, can the same tool be used to do both distant reading and close reading?

    1. but then what’s the point?

      Turn it off, read the story, then turn it back on, using the annotations as a tool for re-reading rather than first encountering a text. Of course, that may be like asking kids not to peak at presents under the tree.

    2. The annotations scrolling down the right-hand margin tempt the reader (or at least they tempted me) to focus on them rather than the main text,

      Even when the annotations are potentially created by (rather than for) me, is it still a distraction? That is, does the ability to create annotations as I am using hypothes.is distract me from reading and contemplating the full argument of the text here.

    3. But the already-annotated text doesn’t leave much space for other kinds of encounters.

      Depends on the tone of the original annotator(s), no? And even on the technical specs of the annotation tool--does it allow for voting, replies, etc.?

    4. The general problem of the language of interpretive “keys” is that it imputes a singular, settled meaning to a text.

      In the end there's really nothing all that new to what Kahn did. It's a more technically ambitious version of what Norton has been doing for decades with it's annotated editions of great works of literature.

      It's when you give students the ability to talk back, to Melville, to Kahn, that something has changed in terms of how people are reading.

    5. Some of my favorite moments in the text were when the annotations gave tonal cues, like “laugh at this. It’s a joke.”

      Very teacherly, isn't it?

    6. it also short-circuits the kind of intensive or “close” reading traditionally valued in literary studies.

      I feel like this is still to be determined, as the author seems to suggest herself below--online annotation can enable close reading. That is Kahn's annotations may stop me from my own reading, but an annotatable "Bartleby" could occasion it, even if already populated with notes from my teacher and classmates.

    7. what kind of reading experience and engagement do texts like these, in their already-annotated state, engender? On the other, what kind of a reading practice does this process of annotation model and make evident?

      Great questions! Reminds me of first studying Shakespeare in high school. It was the first time I'd really had to toggle between a text and notes. What I remember is that some editions did this better than others, but that I wouldn't have been able to read Shakespeare unannotated. Now that's a particular use case--a basically foreign text (in time) for which some translation was needed.

      Some teachers that I've approached about using web annotation in the classroom have been resistant for precisely the reason alluded to here: they want students to experience the text for themselves, grapple with it without a safety net (or the distraction of peer commentary).

    8. open-source tools like Genius

      Genius is not open source, nor based on open standards as hypothes.is is.

  4. d242fdlp0qlcia.cloudfront.net d242fdlp0qlcia.cloudfront.net
    1. was a very large lake here, the largest lake in Texas. That was over a hundred years ago. Now it is just a dry, flat wasteland.There used to be a town of Green Lake as well. The town shriveled and dried up along with the lake, and the people who lived there.During the summer the daytime temperature hovers around n

      test from desktop

    2. stands behind

      Test from iPad.

    1. or equalities are so weighed

      The "qualities" of the 1623 Folio really seems to simplify a more complex line. "Weighing equalities" is kind of a contradiction in terms, whereas "weighing qualities" seems rather straight-forward.

    1. Fifteen years that dawned with terror touching our shores;

      A reference to September 11, 2001, when Al-Queda terrorists flew two hi-jacked commercial planes into the World Trade Center Buildings in New York City.

      Image Description

    1. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have


    1. who identified with John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

      Interesting tidbit. Is it wrong that mention of Ayn Rand immediately shifts my thinking on a person/subject?

    1. To combat this trend, a broad movement is underway to raise the performance level of American students, driven primarily by the adoption of the Common Core State Standards by most states and the District of Columbia.

      mention CCSS

      web annotation as close reading web annotation as promoting digital literacies

    2. to advance American economic competitiveness as well as individual social mobility.


    3. policies aligned with college- and career-ready academic standards

      code for Common Core?

    4. exemplary instructional practice


    5. increase the number of college graduates in STEM fields

      focus on STEM in tertiary grant making

    1. public contributions

      Annotations made using our groups feature are not in the public domain or licensed under Creative Commons as with public contributions. The individual user reserves all rights provided by copyright law for their content created within groups.

    1. because the greater speed of typing leads to verbatim notes

      This hasn't been my personal (albeit highly unique) experience with digital annotation. As a reader, I'm more thoughtful in my digital note-taking than in my marginalia. As a teacher, I've seen students write annotations that nearer the depth of an essay precisely because they were at a keyboard.

    2. while note taking in cursive tends to be a synthesis of content in a reader’s own words.”

      Note taking is never truly "synthesis" is it? It's note taking. Synthesis happens later when really writing. To the extent that that is true, then I'd rather have my notes in a digital, searchable form.

    3. The problem is aggravated, obviously, when one is reading a computer or tablet connected to the Internet and the whole virtual world is at your fingertips.

      Isn't this the state of the world now, rather than a matter of device. Ever since college, my reading has been "burdened" by the resource/distraction of the Internet. I think I've adapted to leverage the latter in the interest of the former.

    4. romance (the biggest chunk by far), mystery, fantasy, and thrillers.

      Yeah, I tore (scrolled?) through several volumes of Game of Thrones on a Kindle, but never finished Gone Girl.

    5. cursive

      Now, that's old school!

      Image Description

    1. “He didn’t tell me that he was hurt in any way shape or form,” the officer said. “He just said he wanted a medic.


    1. to each pair of legs,

      so that top of brace is at 15.5

    2. screw the cleats to the underside of the 2x6s.

      2½-inch-long decking screws, i presume