on “text”

I suspect that textual criticism (and theory) is invisible to most casual observers of the scholarship of language and literature. Perhaps trying to get the culture wars going again holds more appeal for some (Hit it again! I swear I heard it whinny!), but from where I sit, the most compelling scholarly work is taking place elsewhere.

Many have argued that emergent digital technologies are refocusing our attention on what “text” is, exactly, and are reinvigorating a centuries-old tradition of study. For example, the Text Analysis Summit is currently taking place at McMaster University (‘herder Tanya is attending). You can follow along on the Text Analysis Developers Alliance blog.

The study of language and literature is quite wide (though admittedly deeper in some places than in others). Why do some insist on paying attention only to those parts that piss them off? Frankly, I think some people just like to get pissed off.

Print Friendly

3 thoughts on “on “text”

  1. “Why do some insist on paying attention only to those parts that piss them off?”
    The same reason we look at car crashes.
    Many ludologists will tell you that all we do in English departments is talk about narrative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *