Checking out the Whitman Archive

I chose to peruse The Walt Whitman Archive for our discussion this week. Prior to this assignment, I didn’t know much about digital archives, so I’ve enjoyed unearthing this new-to-me concept.

The obvious contribution that The Walt Whitman Archive makes to scholarship is that it makes Whitman’s work much more accessible. For those who are not likely to purchase a Whitman anthology or to come across his work in an academic setting, the online archive makes it easier to jump right into a poem to sort of whet the palate. It’s non-committal, in both money and time, so online users are free to make a determination about Whitman’s poetry and decide whether or not to keep reading. For academics, the instant accessibility of Whitman’s work may allow for a higher presence of scholarly works, which can lead to more thoughtful analysis. Quick connections can be made between Whitman and other poets, and their work can be viewed side-by-side in different windows, rather than having to search for, find, and open a book of poetry (or two). This can lead to more scholarship being written about Whitman.

One of the things that can be done with this project that could not be done in print-based scholarship is the ability to compare editions and versions of specific poems. For instance, you don’t just have access to Leaves of Grass, but to each and every edition of it: 1855, 1856, 1860-61, 1867, and so on. And more than that, the archive also has images from Whitman’s own 1860 copy of Leaves of Grass, complete with his annotations.

nyp-00015-010

Outside of the online archive, something like this could previously only be attained in a library-museum setting, likely under glass and unable to be touched or read cover-to-cover. Scholars can now see every page and every annotation instantly, which can only enrich and enhance Whitman scholarship being written today.

When you click on “About the Archive” in the bottom right-hand corner of the page, you are directed to a page that clearly articulates the purpose of The Walt Whitman Archive. It “endeavors to make Whitman’s vast work freely and conveniently accessible to scholars, students, and general readers.” This aligns with my original claim that the primary strength of this and any online archive is accessibility across countries, careers, ages, and more.

Another strength of the online archive is the plethora of “Pictures & Sound” available for researchers and casual viewers. There is a gallery of 128 images of Whitman and audio recordings of his most famous poems. The site even includes a 36-second recording of “America” in “what is thought to be Whitman’s voice.” And that fact that all of this is available at the click of a button in your own home is amazing.

The “About the Archive” page goes on to introduce the directors, Kenneth M. Price and Ed Folsom, “with ongoing contributions from many other editor-scholars, students, information professionals, and technologists.” This page is much more official and well-constructed than other online archives that I’ve landed on over the years, and it’s clear that they carefully moderate any article for the site.

When Ken Price was asked about the purpose of this site, he said, “We’re doing this in part because his work defines the constraints of a book.” Given the revisionary nature of Whitman’s work, no single text could contain all of his edits. The site allows viewers to more or less get inside Whitman’s mind as they watch him revise poems from one edition to the next.

Not only is this site extremely easy to navigate, but there is actually a site tour available through the “About the Archive” page which clearly lays out the primary and secondary texts available on the site. It says, “The sheer amount of Whitman-related material that the Archive makes accessible can be overwhelming, especially to new users.” To combat this, the site lists the popular sections of the sites with examples and links. In this section, users can scroll down the page and quickly see what the site has to offer. This tour seems to be organized in order of importance, beginning with Whitman’s published work and leading to his letters, reviews, criticisms, and disciples before ending with an extremely comprehensive and searchable Bibliography. The Bibliography alone is a fantastic resource for researchers, as it contains over 14,000 entries, many of which are annotated.

There are also teaching resources available on the site, including sample syllabi and access to an MOOC on Whitman’s Civil War through The University of Iowa. The possibilities for teachers, students, and scholars are endless.

In short, The Walt Whitman Archive is a wonderfully useful site for Whitman scholars. It allows access to many different types of Whitman material that were previously scattered across libraries and museums worldwide. The site’s ease of use makes it simple to find and view all types of Whitman scholarship.

Work Cited

Price, Kenneth M, and Ed Folsom, editors. The Walt Whitman Archive, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, whitmanarchive.org.

Advertisements

How We Read

For the weekly create, I looked around at some of the links provided on our blog and ultimately landed on an article by Kevin Kee in The Globe and Mail: “Share your research. That’s what keeps the humanities alive.”

Kee writes about a time not too long ago when PhD students, and all other scholars, were required to use something called a “library” to conduct all their research. Once an article or book was completed, the only option for these scholars was to have it printed. On paper.

Today, though, there are endless resources for both research and publication. Kee went from feeling as though he would never find what he was looking to for to knowing that everything he could ever want to research is at his fingertips. “Today,” he writes, “like everyone else, I am overwhelmed by information.” This is something we’ve discussed in class at times, but it’s worth saying again: there is a wealth of information available to us at any moment in time, and the challenge becomes rifling through it all. It’s hard to know when your research is complete, since you can never reach the end of the Internet.

And more than just new ways to research, scholars also have the luxury of choosing a medium of publication. Kee uses the example of an article about the Holocaust. Years ago, an author would publish this article in a journal. But today, this article can be published online and supplemented with interactive components: videos of Holocaust survivors explaining their experiences, archived photographs, and more.

Therefore, communication is happening more rapidly than ever before. In the humanities, this means that articles are peer-reviewed and published faster than ever, but there are implications for other disciplines, too. For example, if medical articles are published quickly, which allows peer readers to comment on them faster, perhaps medical advancements can also be achieved at a faster pace. Digital publication could lead to breakthroughs that were previously unattainable as a result of the slower movement of information and the limited audiences of a journal.

Kee was a graduate student in the 1990s, and he wrote this article in 2014. This was only two years ago, but I’m wondering… is two years a long time in the digital humanities? Given the fast pace and the abundance of resources, do articles become irrelevant just as quickly as they were made relevant?

Another article that I found particularly interesting was one that I found while clicking around on The Pew Research Center website: “Book Reading 2016.” Author Andrew Perrin reports results of the 2016 book reading survey and finds that “the share of Americans who have read a book in the last 12 months (73%) has remained largely unchanged since 2012.” I find this to be a positive and encouraging statistic, since I was largely under the assumption that book readership decreased every year.

Perrin also claims that people are still more likely to read a print book. He explains, “E-book readership increased by 11-percentage points between 2011 and 2014 (from 17% to 28%) but has seen no change in the last two years. Similarly, the share of American adults who listen to audio books has changed only marginally since Pew Research Center first asked about this topic in 2011.”

In my house, there is a bit of a print book vs. e-book debate. Overall, I feel: by whatever means necessary. But for the sake of argument… like many of you, I am very devoted and attached to my print books; my husband loves his e-reader. I can certainly see the draw for him. He is able to rent e-books from the library at any hour of the day or night without even leaving the couch. They don’t take up any space, and he can comfortably sit or lay without having to manage a heavy book. On the other hand, I find it more difficult to read an e-book comprehensively. I am also very visual, and I like to write all over my books and use Post-it notes or flags to mark text. Moreover, my eyes get very tired of staring at a screen.

Either way, my husband and I are both reading—and talking about books—more than ever. It’s nice to see that Pew Research Center found that book readership is actually not declining, and that the print market is safe… for now.

Works Cited

Andrew Perrin. “Book Reading 2016.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 1 Sept. 2016, http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/01/book-reading-2016/. Accessed 17 Sept. 2016.

Kee, Kevin. “Share Your Research. That’s What Keeps the Humanities Alive.” The Globe and Mail. 2 Apr. 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/share-your-research-thats-what-keeps-the-humanities-alive/article17758388/. Accessed 17 Sept. 2016.

Digital Tools and Google nGram

In Chapter 3 of his book Unflattening, Nick Sousanis writes (and illustrates), “Languages are powerful tools for exploring the ever greater depths of our understanding. But for all their strengths, languages can also become traps. In mistaking their boundaries for reality, we find ourselves, must like flatlanders, blind to possibilities beyond our borders, lacking both the awareness and the means to step out. The medium we think in defines what we see” (52). He uses the term “flatlander” to describe those who are unable to look outside of their immediate reality to see alternate possibilities and understandings. The emphasis of the word “flat” conjures images of 2-dimensional print texts that humanists have been forever tied to. Sousanis insists that to employ our whole mind and to expand our ability to understand and analyze, we must think outside of the flat, 2-dimensional world.

Digital humanities is both the awareness and the means by which to step out of the flatland, and this is precisely what the digital humanists are working towards. This is made apparent as I work my way through the tools listed on our class blog. I had such a fun time trying out different approaches to text and being able to visualize a story in different ways.

In her article “How We Read: Close, Hyper, Machine” (and in the accompanying video), N. Katherine Hayles explains the concept of the zone of proximal development, proposed by child psychologist Vygotsky: “[I]f the distance is too great between what one wants someone else to learn and where instruction begins, the teaching will not be effective” (65). If we want students to learn how to analyze a text, we have to start somewhere or with something that is familiar to them to be able to build that scaffolding into which acquired knowledge can fit. If young people are spending so much time manipulating digital data, then that is a good place to start. Additionally, the theory of multiple intelligences explains that students learn in different ways, so visualization of text can be an excellent starting point for visual-spatial, logical-mathematical, and verbal-linguistic learners.

DH Tools

The digital humanities offers humanists a wealth of tools to use to visualize text. This week, I am teaching Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” in my freshman English class, so I used that story to try out some of the tools. I really enjoyed using Voyant, which offers two different types of text visualization: a word cloud and a graph of trending terms. In this way, students can begin to better understand the text. When they click on Document Terms above the trending graph, you can see not only how many times Miss Emily is called “old,” but exactly when in the story that word is used. Since the story is not written chronologically, a tool like this can help piece together the order of events.

Sousanis explains the difference between “two distinct kinds of awareness – the sequential and simultaneous” and how they correspond with each hemisphere of the brain (63). Things like word clouds and graphs allow readers to see the two kinds of awareness together. These visualizations take the sequential – the story itself – and make it simultaneous. The entire story is working together to create one image or graph. “The very fabric of our experience emerges from the interaction and integration of each hemisphere’s separate means of perceiving these different ways of knowing held in relationship at one time” (Sousanis 63). This pushes our brain into realms of understanding that were previously unattainable, which the digital humanities rendered possible. So while Hayles argues that digital reading is changing our brain architecture and ability to analyze text (67), Sousanis believes that it is essential to push ourselves outside of the flatlands.

I also checked out Genius, which is such a great way to emphasize the importance of close reading. Hayles explains that close reading is not exactly pertinent in the digital world, but a tool like Genius reminds readers that there is merit in going line-by-line to analyze meaning in a text. Most sentences in “A Rose for Emily” are highlighted in Genius and commented on, and the visualization stresses the importance of every single sentence and word.

The common theme seems to be ease of use. Last week, we spent some time discussing the importance of (or unimportance of) learning how to code and program as a digital humanist. It’s true that someone, somewhere created these sites to begin with, but for casual users, there are some many options out there, which makes me feel a bit more comfortable with venturing into the digital humanities.

Google ngram

I then moved onto the main assignment and checked out Google ngram. I used Google ngram to track the usage of the word “feminism” from 1850 to 2008:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=feminism&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0

From 1850 to 1906, it seems the word didn’t exist. The first jump of use seems to be around 1907, and it stagnates a bit from 1914 to 1967. After 1968, the usage of “feminism” rises exponentially, which makes sense since it coincides with the second wave of feminism and an increase in feminist propaganda. There seems to be a steady decrease from 1996 to 2008, which is the latest the ngram goes up to. This surprises me because this time period includes the third wave of feminism, which apparently did not make much use of the word. This could be a result of the stigmatization of the word “feminism”. Women and men who believe in equal rights for women are wary of the word because it has become mis-defined as a word implying man-bashing and bra-burning, which may be why they were less likely to use it. But if I had to guess, I would assume that the frequency of the usage has begun to increase again since 2008 to today as women once again begin to take ownership of the word and continue the fight for equal rights.

I then plugged in the word “women” for the same timeframe, 1850-2008:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=women&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwomen%3B%2Cc0

From 1850 to 1915, the word “women” in texts increased slowly and somewhat stagnated from 1915 to 1932. This aligns with the fight for women’s suffrage, and it makes sense that the word would have been used steadily during those years. After 1932, the word drops slightly until 1964 when it begins a steep incline. This again aligns with the second wave of feminism. The usage of the word “women” peaked in 1996 and has decreased since then, but, again, I would guess that if ngrams tracked more recently published texts, the word usage would be on the incline.

And then, of course, I had to try the word “men”:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=men&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmen%3B%2Cc0

Now this surprised me the most. Clearly, “men” was in very, very high use from 1850 to 1918 (higher than women and feminism ever reached). But it seems that around the time of women’s suffrage, the use of the term began to drop … and hasn’t really ever recovered. From 1918 to about 1987, the word usage steadily declined, and there has only been a very slight rise in usage from 1987 to 2008. In 2008, the word “men” was used in texts half as much as the word “women.”

I really enjoyed trying out Google ngrams, and this is a tool that I intend to return to again and again to track trends and chart popular usage of terms, theories, and ideas.

Works Cited

Hayles, N. Katherine. “How We Read: Close, Hyper, Machine.” ADE Bulletin 150 (2010): 62-79. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

Sousanis, Nick. Unflattening. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2015. Print.

Digital Shakespeare

Now this is pretty cool. In Alexander Galloway’s LARB interview, he says, “[W]hat more can you really say about Shakespeare today? There isn’t a whole lot. But if you start counting words, then maybe there is something new you can say.” I thought this was such an interesting way to look at digital humanities, as an entirely new way to evaluate texts that we have collectively evaluated ad nauseam. So this was something that was floating around my mind… and then this morning I clicked onto the NYT Humanities 2.0 and read Patricia Cohen’s “Giving Literature Virtual Life.” She talks about teaching Shakespeare and using Theatron3 to allows students to re-create a performance of “Titus Andronicus” digitally. It’s an interactive theater, and students create the characters digitally and decide where they stand and walk, when they talk, what they look like…

I love this idea! I taught “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” last semester to a group of decidedly uninteresting transfer students and wished there was some other way to break through to them. The 1999 movie did little to help. But Theatron3 would have been such a great way to bring Shakespeare to life. I would love to try something like this in the future! Has anyone seen or tried this before?

Cohen also talks about the information gap between student and instructor—in most cases, the student will be more technological-minded, while the instructor has more scholarly knowledge. “It’s a gap that won’t last more than a decade,” she says. “In 10 years these students will be my colleagues, but now it presents unusual learning opportunities.” It’s important to recognize, and this is something that I struggle with, too, at times, that the students are bringing their own expertise to the table, and digital humanities recognizes that and encourages them to apply their knowledge to English studies. Really interesting stuff.

Works Cited

Cohen, Patricia. “Giving Literature Virtual Life.” The New York Times 21 Mar. 2011. NYTimes.com. Web. 7 Sept. 2016.

Galloway Melissa Dinsman interviews Alexander R. “The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Alexander Galloway.” Los Angeles Review of Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.

Digital Humanities and Me

I found myself unsure of exactly what to expect in this course, since I couldn’t wrap my head around what digital humanities really means. Luckily, it seems that I’m in good company. Both Matthew G. Kirschenbaum in his article “What is Digital Humanities and What’s it Doing in English Departments?” and Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens in their Introduction to Literary Studies in the Digital Age attempt definitions for digital humanities, and even those proffered definitions seem to be disputed in some circles, which became evident as I began to dive into the LARB interviews. The header to the interviews posits that “‘digital humanities’ seems astoundingly inappropriate for an area of study that includes, on one hand, computational research, digital reading and writing platforms, digital pedagogy, open-access publishing, augmented texts, and literary databases, and on the other, media archeology and theories of networks, gaming, and wares both hard and soft.” This seems fair to say about a field that is growing by the day and is encompassing so many different disciplines. It’s tough to define something that contains seemingly infinite possibilities. However, the ideas expressed in the readings that I completed this week about digital humanities certainly supported, challenged, and enhanced my ideas of how to approach English studies and pedagogy.

In general, I like to consider myself technologically-inclined. I regularly incorporate emerging technologies into my classrooms: Facebook, Twitter, Prezi, etc. To that end, a lot of what I read supported my vague ideas about digital humanities.

In Alan Liu’s chapter in Literary Studies in the Digital Age, “From Reading to Social Computing,” he suggests that the rise of the Web reflects the changes in the way we read. As literary theory was gaining popularity in the areas of reader-response and deconstructionism, both of which rely on the reader for interpretation, so the Internet was increasingly allowing readers to respond to texts. Thus, digital humanities naturally grew from the fields of theory that were already being cultivated. One can say, then, that perhaps the Internet didn’t change the way we read, but we changed the way we use the Internet. We have this amazing resource at our fingertips, and it only makes sense that we utilize it to the best of our abilities, pushing boundaries at times.

Liu goes on to explain, “[T]he 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—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” (Liu para 26). Thus, if we spend an increasing amount of time on the Internet and computer, our careers, passions, and hobbies should be changed to take on that form. And whatever “reading” is for you, a career, a passion, or a hobby, there is an Internet- or computer-based option to pursue it. It only makes sense that those things we hold most highly would take on whatever form of communication is popular.

However, there were certainly things I read that challenged my thoughts about English studies and pedagogy, and some of it makes me a bit uneasy about the change. The sheer breadth of information is unsettling. Coming from someone who very much enjoys checking things off and deeming them “complete,” I am beginning to understand that an interactive text online can really never be complete. For example, when reading a few chapters from Literary Studies in the Digital Age, I was also reading the comments that users have left for each paragraph. So, I’m not just reading paragraph 24, but also the three user-submitted comments on paragraph 24. Even if I were to read all the paragraphs and every comment, it is likely that more comments will be made in the future. My question, and concern, is how to keep up with it all? This again links back to the idea we spoke about in class of the disappearance of mastery. One can read the canon, as it has been commonly accepted, and say, “Yes, I have mastered the canon.” But now that the idea of a few texts being representative of a whole genre or time period is being challenged, the mastery is gone. Since digital humanities naturally calls for a constant re-examination of texts and literature and theory, nothing is standard or stable. Thus, there is nothing to point to or “check off” and say, “Done!” This is something that people will need to get used to as the field continues to grow.

The influence and importance of digital media in the classroom is also operating on the assumption that our students are computer-literate. Many, most even, may well be, but not all students have age or money on their side; I see many students who grew up before the “tech age” or who do not have a computer in their houses. Do English instructors then have a responsibility to teach our students how to use technology? If so, that infringes on precious class time and eats up a good portion of instruction. As English teachers, we assume that all our college-level students can read and write to some degree—and even that is challenged at times. But to now assume that they are computer-literate … is it asking too much? Alexander Galloway points this out in his LARB interview when he says, “We have a two-culture problem: the humanities and the sciences have been connected and disconnected in various ways for a long time, and it is a lot of demand of a student (or anyone) to say ‘be good in both of these areas.'” I ran into these issues with my own class a couple of years ago when we integrated Twitter into the classroom. Many students did not have a Twitter, and some did not have a smartphone or regularly check social media. It was a challenge to get everyone on the same page.

And more than just being able to use the computer, digital humanities may necessitate the knowledge to manipulate the program or data. This is a question that Melissa Dinsman poses to her interviewees at LARB:  “Do you think full engagement with the digital humanities requires programming skills, and if so, should programming become a requirement for humanities students?” Like the definition of digital humanities, it seems difficult to pin-point a “right” answer to the question. Richard Grusin, for example, suggests that it may be a good idea to learn to program, or script: “if, in fact, to solve that problem or to accomplish whatever that research agenda is you need certain skills, then I think you should get those skills.” Jessica Marie Johnson, on the other hand, does not feel that these are necessary skills in the field of digital humanities. Useful, yes, but not necessary. But Laura Mandell states it most definitively when she says, “I do think people need to have experience, if not with coding, then with infrastructure development, with making things work.” Mandell explains, “I teach XML in my sophomore writing class.” This requirement makes the field of digital humanities that much more polarizing and harder to break into. And of course it begs the question of which discipline it is then most at home in: information technology or the humanities? Not everyone has the knowledge or time to teach XML in their writing classes. Furthermore, Jessica Marie Johnson, in her interview, encourages instructors to think outside of the hard-copy, printed paper that is so often required for a grade. That, too, will take a restructuring that won’t happen overnight. Instructors are also at times unfamiliar with these emerging technologies. Does the burden, then, fall on the university to train the instructors, which will then trickle down to the students?

But there is more than just a specific benchmark of technological knowledge that is required. Once we have gathered our data, we need to know what to do with it. Digital humanities is exceptional in that it can take the textual and make it visual. In fact, the opening image on my blog is a word cloud that was generated when I plugged Kirschenbaum’s article into an online generator. But more than just looking pretty or giving us a general idea of what an article focuses on, digital humanists need to know what to do with all of this information. Laura Mandell says, “Visualization is a way to amplify cognition, but it is not easy to do. We need to figure out not only how to visualize our data, but also how to read it. We know how to read texts, but we don’t know how to read statistics or data visualizations and I think some of the ways in which data mining results are being read—even at the Stanford Literary Lab—are not correct. There are whole fields in statistics and visual studies that we need to take advantage of. We need to get involved in learning these disciplines in order to understand what we see.” Therefore, there is a long road ahead of us as we try to figure out what this all means and how we can use it to the best of our—and its—capabilities.

Overall, though, I feel that there is no doubt that digital humanities will enhance English studies and pedagogy. It is clear that the focus of digital humanities is on collaboration, which can only lead to a better product. Peer review is not a new concept, and it is, in fact, a tool we use to measure the usefulness of a text: has it been peer reviewed and accepted? Even in composition classes, we focus on the importance of peer review for our papers. We stress again and again that two sets of eyes are better than one—well, what about hundreds of sets of eyes? Price and Siemens write about the open peer review process that was launched by Shakespeare Quarterly. Shakespeare Quarterly posted online a number of articles that it was considering for publication, eliciting the public to view these articles and suggest revisions. This is just one small example of the many ways that the Internet is being used as a method of collaboration and partnership.

So while a PhD in English may be particularly adept at analyzing the symbolism of the character names in Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” for example, a psychologist or anthropologist might know more about cult mentality in small towns. Or a priest might be able to help up better understand the significance of the three-legged stool. Literature is a field with a wealth of information and breadth of inquiry, such that—once again—mastery is becoming obsolete. The collaboration that is organic to the digital humanities may be one answer to this.

I regularly use Google Docs with my students, which allows me to make suggestions and comments in real-time, while they can go ahead and address those issues or ask me a question. It’s wonderfully useful, and I look forward to figuring out better ways to help students learn in the future. Digital humanities will also help both me and my students look at literature differently. It is a way to bring literature into the 21st century and beyond. Literature comes out of the stuffy library and into a dynamic and collaborate environment. “Digital literary studies is characterized not by the guardedness so often seen in the academy, but by a culture of sharing and exchange” (Price and Siemens para 17). It is more accessible, more user-friendly, and more interactive than ever before, which both students and instructors can appreciate.

Liu explains a LiveJournal project that he assigned his students in 2008. Students were required to create blogs for each character of The Canterbury Tales and interact with one another as if they were those characters. The discovery was that “the framework of social interaction and discourse that Chaucer created has a remarkable affinity to today’s blogosphere—even to the point that the rudeness, ‘flames,’ baitings from ‘trolls,’ and other apparent debasements and provocations of language typifying the extremes of the blogosphere can be understood to be Chaucerian in ethos” (para 43). Thus, perhaps technology is not entirely new or out of the literary realm. Perhaps it is over 500 years in the making.

Works Cited

Galloway, Melissa Dinsman interviews, Alexander R. “The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Alexander Galloway.” Los Angeles Review of Books. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.

Grusin, Melissa Dinsman interviews Richard. “The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Richard Grusin.” Los Angeles Review of Books. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.

Johnson, Melissa Dinsman interviews Jessica Marie. “The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Jessica Marie Johnson.” Los Angeles Review of Books. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?” ADE Bulletin (2010): 55–61. CrossRef. Web.

Liu, Alan. “From Reading to Social Computing.” Literary Studies in the Digital Age. Ed. Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens. Modern Language Association of America, 2013. CrossRef. Web. 4 Sept. 2016.

Price, Kenneth M., and Ray Siemens. “Introduction.” Literary Studies in the Digital Age. Ed. Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens. Modern Language Association of America, 2013. CrossRef. Web. 3 Sept. 2016.

“The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Laura Mandell – Los Angeles Review of Books.” Web. 5 Sept. 2016.