Show Sidebar Log in
NYC Digital Humanities
  • Home
  • People
  • Groups
  • Calendar
  • Student Award
  • NYCDH Week
  • Site-Wide Activity
  • Help
  • About
    • NYCDH Logo

Group Admins

  • Profile picture of Kimon Keramidas
  • Profile picture of Matthew K. Gold

NYCDH Announcements

Public Group active 1 day, 7 hours ago

Join this group to receive announcements about all-NYCDH activities or other news of interest to the whole community. And use this group to send such announcements. When you join, you may adjust your settings on how much email you’d like to receive.

David Hoover on "Argument, Evidence, and the Limits of Digital Literary Studies"

  • This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by David L. Hoover.
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • November 5, 2014 at 9:06 am #933
      David L. Hoover
      Participant

      Dear Colleagues,

      I will be giving a talk with the title above this Friday, November 7, at 6:00 PM in the Draper Map Room, 14 University Place (next to the Deutsches Haus)

      The talk is part of the lecture series, Interdisciplinarity in Today’s Academy , sponsored by the Draper Interdisciplinary Master’s Program in Humanities and Social Thought.

      Abstract:
      In this talk, I want to take up three related issues in the recent history of the Digital Humanities. The first is the often-repeated lament that DH has had little influence on traditional humanities disciplines. The second is the argument of Jerome McGann’s /Radiant Textuality/, and more recently, Stephen Ramsay’s /Reading Machines/, that DH is too scientific and too empirical, and that it needs to be transformed into a set of tools that will help literary critics do what they already like to do. The third is a recent attack on DH by Stanley Fish, who argues that DH (and more specifically, distant reading) is a whimsical and insufficiently serious method that is “dictated by the capacity of the tool.” I will argue that the recent avalanche of interest in DH in literary studies and elsewhere is making the lament less valid. I will also argue, by doing some analysis of my own, that some of McGann’s approaches are insufficiently “radiant,” that Ramsay’s provocative intervention into Woolf’s /The Waves/ is deeply flawed (partly because it mistakes computationally tractable problems for intractable ones), and that Fish’s criticism badly misses the point by failing to see that the kind of criticism he wants to do is not only compatible with DH but more easily and more effectively done using DH methods.

      Best,
      David

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In
Group logo of NYCDH Announcements
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Announcements
  • Docs
  • Members 741

Groups

Newest | Active | Popular | Alphabetical
  • Group logo of NYCDH Announcements
    NYCDH Announcements
    741 members
  • Group logo of Digital Pedagogy
    Digital Pedagogy
    109 members
  • Group logo of NYC Omeka Group
    NYC Omeka Group
    90 members
  • Group logo of digiBar
    digiBar
    79 members
  • Group logo of NYC Digital Art History
    NYC Digital Art History
    73 members
Powered by Commons In A Box
css.php
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Register