the “fossils” of literary evolution
it reminds me what the other article says, the DH is related with interdisciplinary approach. Is this just a literature research? Actually, it might seem more like a history, or culture study. Historian who are interested in literature might handle research like this. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think it is nature.
because we have never really tried to read theentire volume of the literary past.
I think this happens nowadays too. Actually, our studies or researches are emphasis on so-called serious? literature. Genre literature was easily deemed as not that serious. However, the scale of literature is getting bigger like web-literature. Should we ignore it? Moretti's research seems like widen the scale of it, researching outside canon.
If you are trying to sella product, that’s exactly what you want.
I don't know Moretti well, but he might be a materialist. Is methodology of DH itself related with that kind of result?
It may be that DH practitioners hold up the term “humanities” as a point of prideprecisely
I also like the ending point, as I am convinced by it. We have to define humanities research, and get fund by it. However, the author changes the paradigm with interdisciplinary studies.<br /> I might be too generous of this writing, but it is true that I become more favor to HD after reading this.
there is a danger, given funding landscapes, that humanities or socialscience scholars
Whether the problem of funds is solvable or not, I like the way the author puts expected rebuttal and react to it. The author uses this strategy often and it persuades me.
epidemiology metaphor
I think this analogy is really powerful for me. It is easy to understand as well as persuasive. Unlike the author mention the word trend, I like to use a word "discourse" at those old days. As the author says, I agree that one can attribute to close reading, once the researcher knows about the bigger picture - discourse - of those days.
Just as atoms can be frozen in place by observation, then, the text can be thought of as “a provisional unity” that has more to do with the questions we wish to ask than to an immutable external reality
It reminds me of Buddhism and their one of the most famous philosophy of cause and effect.
In so doing we can assess trends across newspapers that are not always apparent at the level of an individual issue.
What is the result of this result(?). Notifying trend itself can be a valuable information, however, I think it also might get through interpretation through researchers' distortion as they says. Distortion matter seems like inevitable for me.
Like my views of a blood drop as a child, neither scale is better or more truthful: both are revelatory, even sometimes awe inspiring.
I like the way the author tries to solve the tension between close and distance reading, however, I am still skeptical that it can help the irony of observation or distortion.
Who needs universities?
I agree with chayoung's idea. I think this was and is happening in every era. While New wave of studying arises, the old way faded. I'm not saying that DH is going to be future, but I'm saying that this kind of thread might be historical.
It confuses more information for moreknowledge
I agree with his idea, but i think it is not a useless process. Once more information given, the more we can use or interpret it.
planned obsolescence.
Is this saying that the research method or results are not that valuable? I think this word is too negative.
Furthermore, its growth, support, and success can be traced, oris often explained, defended, or promoted, in terms of the very neoliberalvalues that have been seen to be the cause of the current crisis in, especially,public funding for higher education.
I am sure that is true, but I myself believe that money isn't only reason behind it. I think DH itself can be attractive to younger scholars, as they should explore the area where the older didn't get to. I think its' growth and expansion can be also from scholars' own preference, not from a society or universities.
My concern is that this divide threatens both to increase ten-sions within the mla community and to intensify the precarity runningthrough the academic humanities writ large.
I think this is important part. In general, this work can be interpreted as a condemnation or blaming DH research. However, the author tries to make sure the intention of it.
distinguish the scholarly goal of creating new mode
I think it is hard to distinguish them. Thinking about highly achieved project, how can one know whether that is coming from pure scholarly intention or mere money?
Digital humanities does not so much contest the modern division between saying and doing as attempt to dilate the critical power of doing.[
Actually, I don't 100% understand it, as I think saying is still strong enough, especailly logical saying or saying with reason.
both within the academy and overseas, and I wish to see digital humanities dismantle as well as build things
I think this sums up this work very well. For me, this writing seems more like about expectation to DH, not about what have it been achieving.
called, in my title, the “virtues” of digital humanities—which also include collaboration, humility, and openness
For like this evaluation, I think I need more example of this matter? Maybe I should read Spiro's work, too.