I haven’t written anything in forever (studying for exams makes me mute), but I have to note how cool the Web Supplement to Hayles’ Writing Machines is–it’s pretty cool. It makes a great point of remarking upon its own method of remediating (of electronic to print and print to electonric) textuality.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Library & Information Science- A Grad Option for Professional Writing Students – Sydnei Wheat on Joint Degrees in Library and Information Science and English, History, and Arts
- Information and Library Science: A Grad Option for Professional Writing Students – UAB MEMORANDUM on Joint Degrees in Library and Information Science and English, History, and Arts
- tjowens on Class on Fieldwork in Digital Humanities
- mcburton on Class on Fieldwork in Digital Humanities
- StanfordArcade on Class on Fieldwork in Digital Humanities
Archives
- July 2019
- June 2019
- October 2015
- September 2015
- January 2015
- May 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- July 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- October 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- November 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
Categories
Meta
See, I actually thought it was kind of like the book– gimmicky (with some great insight). As a method of commenting upon how codex and database structures organize information, yes, it does work, but in quite an obvious way, offering little that wasn’t already offered in the book. Having said all of that, it would be nice to see more of this kind of effort.
And by the way, it’s about time you got around to renaming your blog headings. “Sussing these sand sculptures” is my favorite. Getting ready to read some Seuss to the young one, are we? š
What bothered me most about Writing Machines was that this book, apparently about textual materiality and all its trappings, somehow pushed its bibliography to the web (and only the web), and left very little in the book itself to indicate sources and credits. An unfortunate move, in my mind.
Hayles explains somewhere that the series doesn’t allow for footnotes, citations, etc. within the body of the book–this does not diminish your point, but it does highlight the extent to which any materaility is created within the social nexus of the textual event. I like that this is a reminder of that–besides, (and this is not a nontrivial point in her argument) instantiations on the web have as much materiality as the book.
Marc, I took your lead on the headings, of course. Me gusta mucho!
I remember the explanation, but I found it lacking then, and still do now. Certainly the web component has its own materiality, and that includes the necessity for a web connection, electricity, and a computer – things I should’ve have to have in order to see that she has sources (when Iām reading on the Metro, for example). I think that my (perhaps overstated) frustration with that aspect of the book stems from the general theme of the series, which takes a more personal / autobiographical view – which unfortunately shares the danger of ignoring important scholarly antecedents to one’s own personal work. Divorcing the bibliography and notes only exacerbated this issue for me …
True. All good points, especially if you consider the fact that even a book has its “access” problems in terms of materiality (it only has enough space to include SOME notes and citations). I actually liked the personal/autobiographical view that you mention. I think that it does important work with exploding genre categories (another textual problem, I think) and unmasking what has become at times the “bodyless” and “unmarked” voice of critical inquiry. And, I’m not sure what the danger is of not including some scholarly antecedents. Someone always gets left out anyway (you can’t mention them all) and the people that get left out are usually those who get left out of the conversation in many way–not an excuse not to mention anyone, but a nod toward the problems of critical canonicity.
Don’t forget to check the acknowledgements š