Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 35.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "John Unsworth" <jmu2m@virginia.edu> (21)
Subject: RE: 15.031 obstacles to humanities computing: SGML
authoring
[2] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (72)
Subject: indictment of whom, on what grounds?
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 06:59:52 +0100
From: "John Unsworth" <jmu2m@virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: 15.031 obstacles to humanities computing: SGML authoring
Charles,
In re: your comments on Kirk Lowery's email about Emacs+PSGML:
>I think that what you describe is precisely the situation that we need to
>get away from. It should _not_ be necessary for scholars to become
>computer experts in order to do the work for which we have been trained.
>
>You should not have had to spend uncounted hours to get to this level; and
>I think that it is a real indictment of humanities computing as a
>discipline that you have had to do so.
As I pointed out in an earlier email on this subject, there is software out
there that does not require you to become a computer expert in order to
produce SGML--it costs less than $300, which is about what a good
word-processing program cost two or three years ago. If the time it takes
to learn emacs is worth more than $300, then one should buy the commercial
software package; if the time it takes is worth less, or if one values the
greater speed, flexibility, and customization that emacs offers, then one
should spend the time and acquire the skills. In any case, if producing
SGML or XML is a central part of one's scholarly activity, neither course
(spending some money or spending some time) seems unreasonable, to me at
least.
John Unsworth
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 06:56:32 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: indictment of whom, on what grounds?
Charles Faulhaber's note in Humanist 15.031 about the trials and
tribulations suffered by Kirk Lowery got me to thinking about several of my
experiences as a besieger of disciplines and sacker of subjects. To keep
nostalgia at a minimum, however, let me recount only one very recent
experience.
In pursuit of a question about what computing might do to commentary
practice, I recently wandered once again into E. R. Dodds' famous (and
truly great) commentary on Euripides Bacchae. Looking for a comment
particularly rich in intertextual variety I stumbled upon Dodds' long
paragraph on lines 661-2, about snow falling on Citheron. (Dodds remarks
parenthetically that "I found none when I climbed the mountain in April" --
charming to think of the scholar climbing the mountain to be *there*, where
it happened.) In any case, the point of the story occurs much later in the
paragraph, in a note about metre, where Dodds quotes two words of Greek and
comments: "-- aneisan chionos L. Dindorf, to avoid the tribrach composed of
a single word..." and so on. Now for my purposes I thought this a very
interesting bit of work, very precise. Dodds' sense of audience is so keen
(someone who knows this stuff correct me if I am wrong) that, for example,
he spells out "Seneca... Thyestes" to accommodate experts in Greek drama
who are insufficiently familiar with the Latin tradition to know a Roman
author and his work from abbreviations, though such are used for all
references to Greek authors and works. He also does not use forenames or
initials unless he thinks he has to. So why "L."? Some research revealed to
me that there were two Dindorfs in the field, brothers in fact, so Dodds is
addressing quite precisely those who will of course know the surname but
just might not know that Ludwig August is the one to go for. But which
work? Ludwig published on historical texts mostly, Xenophon as I recall.
Where does the outsider to this field look? I spent not countless but some
hours investigating, then gave up. In frustration, I can tell you. Less
troublesome was "Verrall's notion that 662 is interpolated..."; there's
really only one possible work Dodds could be referring to, although there's
no way of telling from a library catalogue, as Verrall did not write a
commentary in the usual sense, rather an essay. So one has to know the
book. But the Dindorf question still has me stumped.
Of course those who know the gatekeeper well and greet him or her every
morning on their way into ancient Greek drama studies will think my
experience utterly unremarkable, just what one would expect for an ignorant
person who wanders in off the street looking for a place to crash. To be
fair, those who love the commentary genre worry about situations like this
one -- some call it an endangered species and worry out loud about how to
make it more approachable to a wider audience. (We have something for them,
don't we?)
My point: that we also have a lot of work to do in humanities computing to
minimise this sort of situation. Especially in humanities computing, since
so many different kinds of people with so many different backgrounds are
wandering in and wanting to do something they recognise as valuable with
their time. I beg to differ (as I have delightfully and profitably before)
with my colleague Charles, but I don't see the regrettable situation he
describes as the basis for an indictment -- as if by some kind of law we
were obligated to make sure that everyone has the nicest possible
experience -- rather as the basis for a realisation of how far we have to
go in some areas. It is indeed *very* easy for people far into a subject,
like the Oxonian professor deep into his classical Greek, to forget that
not everyone will know exactly what to reach for when L. Dindorf pops up.
To be fair, Dodds was writing in the early 1940s, when "schoolboys" could
be expected to use his edition (he says just that in his preface, o
tempora, o mores) -- though the reference to Dindorf is bracketed away to
indicate "for the professional scholar only". We *could* act that way too,
build ourselves a disciplinary wall (put glass fragments on the top, as the
Oxford colleges and some of my East End neighbours do) to keep out all but
properly trained experts. But that seems not such a good idea to me.
On the other hand, the argument that difficult subjects are made easy only
by diluting their essence, that education is all about becoming more able
to jump higher, not about lowering the bar, is hard to put aside. How does
one know what difficulties are needless?
In any case, back to work.
Yours,
WM
-----
Dr Willard McCarty / Senior Lecturer /
Centre for Computing in the Humanities / King's College London /
Strand / London WC2R 2LS / U.K. /
+44 (0)20 7848-2784 / ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 22 2001 - 02:19:40 EDT