Whatever Happened to Electronic Editing?

Millett, Bella

doi:10.1484/m.tt-eb.1.101732

Cited by 15 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first wave of largescale digital editing projects during the 1990s and early 2000s showed how rapidly optimistic visions of digital abundance and openness can unravel amid the wider withdrawal of education funding, increasing inter-institutional competition as a result of higher education marketisation, and ambiguous plans for electronic sustainability. 94 With the ongoing defunding of the humanities in Europe and North America and the accompanying large-scale casualization of academic labour, these challenges have in many ways only sharpened since digital technologies first offered textual scholars the chance to experiment with new editorial methods and text visualizations. Sargent's brief account of 'an ongoing cooperative team' broaches this issue to an extent, but amid the broader uncertainty and insecurity of employment in the humanities, the question of exactly how 'ongoing' such a project and team could really be-and whose interests they would ultimately serve-remains an open one.…”

Section: What's In a Name?mentioning

confidence: 99%

National Philology, Imperial Hierarchies, and the ‘Defective’ Book of Sir John Mandeville

White

2019

The Review of English Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines when and how the ‘Defective’ version of the Book of Sir John Mandeville came to be called ‘defective’. It describes the use of this name by Sir George F. Warner in an edition produced in 1889 for the elite bibliographic society the Roxburghe Club. Drawing on recent work in disability studies, it argues that the philological use of ‘defective’ be read in conjunction with its broader use in the elaboration of hierarchies of class, race, and gender. Far from a neutral descriptor, ‘defective’ provides a compelling example of the imbrication of medieval studies, imperialism, and Social Darwinist principles in the late nineteenth century. The article closes with the call not only to rename the ‘Defective’ version the ‘Common’ version, but also for a broader reappraisal of this apparently discrete version of Mandeville’s Book. However, it also argues that amid the increasing marketization of higher education and the concomitant insecurity of academic labour, digital editing does not provide a straightforward answer to the question of how best to map and display the complex textual history of Mandeville’s Book.

show abstract

Section: What's In a Name?mentioning

confidence: 99%