Ulmer approaches story under a very different definition than what many people–even academics–would ascribe to the word. That said, his discussion of story made me think of how story in its colloquial sense(s) might appear across academic disciplines. If “[t]he love story is the tribute the lover must pay to the world in order to be reconciled with it” (Barthes qtd in Ulmer 147)–or if experience is understood by the uninitiated only through story–what role does story play in our studies?
Does the emphasis on invention get at the proper object of digital humanities? Does it simply expand the notion of the text while retaining the structural centrality of the text? Does this make any kind of sense? I’m trying to think through how Ulmer’s work has (or hasn’t) kept up with the expanding field and formats of digital media.
Thinking about the function of neologism, self-mythology, and academia. Maybe this will be addressed in Part 2 of Ulmer’s Teletheory?
This is an exploration of Gitelman’s comparison between the phonograph and the Internet and how, as “new media,” these two brought into question how we look at concepts like the document or the lecture. I would like to specifically discuss what implications Gitelman’s theory of new media has for 1) accessibility to information and 2) how we establish authority and authorship in new media. I use the concept of Wikipedia specifically to discuss how some of these concepts relate to new digital networks, and how these technologies raise similar questions to those raised by the printing press.
I’ll be the first to admit that I do get a little hung up on surface-level material in these readings. This week, it’s Gitelman’s mention of the rise of skepticism among consumer’s of print culture. I think this poses the question of how long it takes for the public to become skeptical or what variables must present themselves to instill doubt in the minds of media users. Lend an ear. Lend some insight.