Literature Review
David Sewell’s “Its For Sale, So it Must Be Finished: Digital Projects in the Scholarly Publishing World” made me curious right from the start. I was intrigued because I had not thought about the dilemma of defining ‘done’ before. The article was very interesting from the first sentence. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sewell’s article and I was fascinated by it.
It actually made me think about the piece I contributed to the webpage for this seminar. When I wrote about it first, my knowledge was very vague but as I researched more and more it became clearer and my essay started to change. Even now, the subject is so dynamic that I could contribute every day with a new link to the subject and a new perspective, so I could never describe my essay as complete or finished. I consider this as a good thing, it can only make a subject better and more active.
I found that Sewell structured his article very well, he had headings and sub-headings throughout which made it easy to read and follow. The language of the article was also very understandable, no big computer terms were jumping out at me, which put me at ease from the beginning.
The article begins with a very simple and clear description of what it intends to explain to us as the reader. Sewell states that in “this article I describe how we defined the criteria for ‘done-ness’ in creating two very different projects”(sewell). The projects in which he explains are Herman Melville’s Typee manuscript and a conversion of the letterpress papers of George Washington into a digital edition.
He posed a question with an impossible answer but the article tries to explain the complexity that exists in answering this difficult question.
The two projects that he uses to explain are both very helpful and very interesting.
Sewell describes the term ‘done’ as curious, I think this depicted it very well as we want to know more and we are eager to learn more which is especially true when talking within the digital humanities sphere.
The question of when an article, journal or book is completed can be debated for years decades and centuries. The idea of something being ‘done’ without having any alterations in the future is daunting. A book goes through a rigorous process of editing and proof reading which is repeated more then twice until everyone is happy. Sewell claims that this process is different with digital objects, which is what makes the whole idea suspicious. If one says that their work is completed then the author will be inundated with questions by all involved. The essence of the internet surely means that it can be altered, links can be added and importantly sites can change to a new or different format.
Claiming that your work is officially complete could be seen as ‘cutting your own throat’ in a sense, no piece can be absolutely finished unless of course it is a sonnet or a song, as Sewell explains.
Questions such as ‘what happens if there is no possible completion’ then arise. Can we call anything complete?
Sewell makes the reader think about this, he gives great examples. When I finished reading this article I pondered on this subject for awhile as I was stunned at the fact I had never thought about it before, a simple question with a very complex answer. It interested me so I decided to have a ‘Google around’ the subject. Digital humanities is a very fascinating subject and the deeper you go the more it offers you which I myself have experienced whilst studying the subjiect. It is like an onion, just keep peeling.
Within the article, Sewell discusses George Landow and Paul Delany’s essay “Hypertext, Hypermedia and literary studies” which brings up a lot more questions on the topic. Essentially the argument within the essay seems to be that if you put a text on the internet it automatically becomes opened and unfinished. But would this then claim that journals and books are classified as finished? Which is not always so. When a book is published, reviews are written and maybe articles are written in contest or agreement with the book. In depth character and plot analysis are debated among readers and scholars. So, when a book is published it is not the end of that book. The book continues on, links are made and different versions of plot and character analysis arise offering a huge contribution to the understanding and opinion of a particular book or journal, it would be a shame not have the perspectives of others. Obviously there are books that have a beginning, middle and end but who knows what changes the future could offer. The internet makes this process easier, links can be made instantaneously and features can also be added. It is a hard question to answer, defining what is finished and unfinished. I think that the internet has highlighted the finished/unfinished question because works can be altered instantly.
The article sheds light on Rotunda, and importantly Sewell explains how they define done “ it is done when the press is prepared to offer it for purchase and customers are prepared to buy it”. This makes a lot of sense as I would not be happy buying an unfinished book or article or anything. I want the finished version, whatever that might be.
The examples that Sewell uses are perfect for explaining his argument. He explained in a easy and understandab
le manner. I found myself intrigued with Melville’s Typee and went onto the Rotunda website. What I found was fantastic, it showcases Melville’s process of revision in composing his first book. This is a fantastic resource for anyone. The computer based format suited this dynamic process perfectly and experiencing the whole process was superb.
David Sewell’s “Its For Sale, So it Must Be Finished: Digital Projects in the Scholarly Publishing World” made me curious right from the start. I was intrigued because I had not thought about the dilemma of defining ‘done’ before. The article was very interesting from the first sentence. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sewell’s article and I was fascinated by it.
It actually made me think about the piece I contributed to the webpage for this seminar. When I wrote about it first, my knowledge was very vague but as I researched more and more it became clearer and my essay started to change. Even now, the subject is so dynamic that I could contribute every day with a new link to the subject and a new perspective, so I could never describe my essay as complete or finished. I consider this as a good thing, it can only make a subject better and more active.
I found that Sewell structured his article very well, he had headings and sub-headings throughout which made it easy to read and follow. The language of the article was also very understandable, no big computer terms were jumping out at me, which put me at ease from the beginning.
The article begins with a very simple and clear description of what it intends to explain to us as the reader. Sewell states that in “this article I describe how we defined the criteria for ‘done-ness’ in creating two very different projects”(sewell). The projects in which he explains are Herman Melville’s Typee manuscript and a conversion of the letterpress papers of George Washington into a digital edition.
He posed a question with an impossible answer but the article tries to explain the complexity that exists in answering this difficult question.
The two projects that he uses to explain are both very helpful and very interesting.
Sewell describes the term ‘done’ as curious, I think this depicted it very well as we want to know more and we are eager to learn more which is especially true when talking within the digital humanities sphere.
The question of when an article, journal or book is completed can be debated for years decades and centuries. The idea of something being ‘done’ without having any alterations in the future is daunting. A book goes through a rigorous process of editing and proof reading which is repeated more then twice until everyone is happy. Sewell claims that this process is different with digital objects, which is what makes the whole idea suspicious. If one says that their work is completed then the author will be inundated with questions by all involved. The essence of the internet surely means that it can be altered, links can be added and importantly sites can change to a new or different format.
Claiming that your work is officially complete could be seen as ‘cutting your own throat’ in a sense, no piece can be absolutely finished unless of course it is a sonnet or a song, as Sewell explains.
Questions such as ‘what happens if there is no possible completion’ then arise. Can we call anything complete?
Sewell makes the reader think about this, he gives great examples. When I finished reading this article I pondered on this subject for awhile as I was stunned at the fact I had never thought about it before, a simple question with a very complex answer. It interested me so I decided to have a ‘Google around’ the subject. Digital humanities is a very fascinating subject and the deeper you go the more it offers you which I myself have experienced whilst studying the subjiect. It is like an onion, just keep peeling.
Within the article, Sewell discusses George Landow and Paul Delany’s essay “Hypertext, Hypermedia and literary studies” which brings up a lot more questions on the topic. Essentially the argument within the essay seems to be that if you put a text on the internet it automatically becomes opened and unfinished. But would this then claim that journals and books are classified as finished? Which is not always so. When a book is published, reviews are written and maybe articles are written in contest or agreement with the book. In depth character and plot analysis are debated among readers and scholars. So, when a book is published it is not the end of that book. The book continues on, links are made and different versions of plot and character analysis arise offering a huge contribution to the understanding and opinion of a particular book or journal, it would be a shame not have the perspectives of others. Obviously there are books that have a beginning, middle and end but who knows what changes the future could offer. The internet makes this process easier, links can be made instantaneously and features can also be added. It is a hard question to answer, defining what is finished and unfinished. I think that the internet has highlighted the finished/unfinished question because works can be altered instantly.
The article sheds light on Rotunda, and importantly Sewell explains how they define done “ it is done when the press is prepared to offer it for purchase and customers are prepared to buy it”. This makes a lot of sense as I would not be happy buying an unfinished book or article or anything. I want the finished version, whatever that might be.
The examples that Sewell uses are perfect for explaining his argument. He explained in a easy and understandab
le manner. I found myself intrigued with Melville’s Typee and went onto the Rotunda website. What I found was fantastic, it showcases Melville’s process of revision in composing his first book. This is a fantastic resource for anyone. The computer based format suited this dynamic process perfectly and experiencing the whole process was superb.The other example he used was the papers of George Washington digital edition (PGWDE) which Sewell claims is a very different project. It involved producing an online version of the papers . This caused just as much problems as Typee which was a born-digital project. I found this very interesting as well, and it too raised questions about the debate on finished and unfinished works.
The whole idea of finished and unfinished work is very interesting and this article has shown that. This debate is only going to get more fascinating. I believe that everything is unfinished. The word finished has two meanings, the obvious one being work that is made smooth and polished but the other being “having no more use, value or potential; washed up”. The latter definition makes the task of identifying finished and unfinished work easy because no work could ever be defined as having no more use and so all work would seem to be unfinished. Which from that definition is a good thing.
Sewell leaves the reader with a lot to think about, he explains his argument very well and left me wanting to know more.
The whole idea of finished and unfinished work is very interesting and this article has shown that. This debate is only going to get more fascinating. I believe that everything is unfinished. The word finished has two meanings, the obvious one being work that is made smooth and polished but the other being “having no more use, value or potential; washed up”. The latter definition makes the task of identifying finished and unfinished work easy because no work could ever be defined as having no more use and so all work would seem to be unfinished. Which from that definition is a good thing.
Sewell leaves the reader with a lot to think about, he explains his argument very well and left me wanting to know more.
or is it...............?
No comments:
Post a Comment