How are Shakespeareans just like everyone else on the Web?
The conversation beginning to percolate here is Shakespeare-centric. Obviously, the focus of this special issue is that which is particular to Shakespeare studies and Shakespeareans, in/around/on/about new media. A group of us have dedicated an SAA workshop, “Shakespeare 2.0,” to the particular needs, desires, proclivities of Shakespeareans in online environments. But it is as useful [...]
Video Fair Use and its consequences for Scholars and Journals
The world of video fair use is changing. Those changes open opportunities for students and scholars and put pressure on traditional journals, such as Shakespeare Quarterly, to reconsider their core formats. Will SQ ever want to compete in the intellectual world of critical essays that make arguments in (as opposed to about) new media formats? [...]
A canon of Shakespeare on screen?
This just in from Luke McKernan: John Wyver, at the Illuminations Media blog, has begun a big picture conversation that is worth weighing in on, hoping to establish a canon of Shakespeare’s works on screen. He invites all to join in. I’ve posted some queries about the underlying assumptions behind this idea in my comments [...]
Reactions, responses, cogitations
I’m getting a host of emails from colleagues in response to this process, ranging from enthusiastic to cautionary to grumpy. I think these warrant larger conversation. Herewith: a place to post your initial experiences as authors, reviewers, readers. I should add that the editors of Shakespeare Quarterly are agnostic as to what we will discover [...]
Scanning current practices of scholarly peer review
This experiment should properly be called a “partially open peer review process” rather than an “open” peer review process, since it includes two phases of traditional editorial oversight. For a longer discussion of the nuances of different peer review models, read Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s history of academic peer review, sketch of its future, and analysis of [...]
Defining the phrase “web 2.0″
Another valuable way to begin is with a discrimination of terms, in this case, a methodological discrimination important to media studies as a discipline. When we speak of any media, new or old, it is important to distinguish between between media themselves (e.g., live performance, writing, recorded sound), delivery formats (e.g., theater, books, phonograph), and [...]
Shakespeare and New Media Blog
January 15, the deadline for submissions to the special issue of Shakespeare Quarterly on Shakespeare and New Media, is nearly here. The editorial team is cautiously excited about the groundwork we have laid. The process leading up to this experiment has been a long and complex one. I want to launch this blog, therefore, with [...]
Recent Comments on this Post
16 March 2010 at 8.09 am
That is new to me — and I assume to many reading on this site. Thanks for the reference.
Can you say more about what seems compelling or engaging about this use of Facebook?
See in context
15 March 2010 at 7.10 pm
I wonder if you’ve seen this great project of having students build Facebook pages for the characters in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” — quite ingenious!
See in context
Recent Comments in this Document
25 April 2012 at 8.51 pm
[...] mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/ShakespeareQuarterly_NewMedia/hope-witmore-the-hundredth-ps… [...]
See in context
9 January 2012 at 1.12 pm
[...] by Laura Stevens as Editor of the Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature. Stevens weighs the crowd-sourcing experiment of Shakespeare Quarterly against maintaining a double-blind review process, and wonders whether it is even possible for [...]
See in context
14 November 2011 at 8.28 pm
[...] been perusing an issue of Shakespeare Quarterly (SQ) called “Shakespeare and New Media.” In her introduction, the guest editor (Katherine Rowe) references Katherine Hayle’s comment regarding new media’s [...]
See in context
10 October 2010 at 9.58 pm
[...] Witmore’s similar clustering studies using Docuscope. See also this draft version of Witmore and Hope’s forthcoming piece in Shakespeare [...]
See in context
7 September 2010 at 2.16 pm
[...] experimental peer review fits nicely into broader efforts to change the peer review process (see this chart of other peer review approaches prepared by MediaCommons) and scholarly publishing in general. Groups like MediaCommons see [...]
See in context
3 September 2010 at 10.58 pm
[...] In this case, we learn that Docuscope is sensitive to human editorial intervention in texts. So sensitive, in fact, that it produced an almost complete clustering of Shakespeare’s plays in the larger group of 320 that we profiled in the online draft of our “Hundredth Psalm” article. [...]
See in context
25 August 2010 at 5.06 pm
[...] Hope and I participated in. We received some terrific feedback, mostly from Shakespeareans, on the article that was posted to Media Commons–feedback that helped us rewrite the essay for the print [...]
See in context
29 July 2010 at 2.34 pm
[...] that are, in a sense, built into the physical system of writing? I think people who are doing iterative criticism need to have an intelligent answer to this question and analysis of its underlying analogy. My [...]
See in context
17 May 2010 at 3.06 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wynken de Worde. Wynken de Worde said: @colinclout12 Btw, if you want to read abt online Shk, good article by Andrew Murphy for SQ in draft at http://bit.ly/aXOKYc [...]
See in context
10 May 2010 at 8.50 am
This comment is from Adele Seeff, Director of the Center for Renaissance & Baroque Studies, University of Maryland
http://www.crbs.umd.edu/about/seeff/seeffcv.shtml
Hi Katherine,
I tried to post to the blog and kept getting an error message but I
wanted to get my observations to you and perhaps they could be posted to
the site.
I know that emailing you defeats the real purpose here but I wanted to
applaud SQ for the experiment, which, in my view, demands courage
because the reviewers are in turn being reviewed by readers, authors,
and other reviewers. This egalitarian process thus flattens out the
usual hierarchic process of peer review followed by rejection or
acceptance to an academic print journal, and mirrors the creative
anarchy of the web. As the Fitzpatrick piece points out, the nature of
authority is shifting (has shifted?) but the nature of ownership is also
shifting, and we could argue that we, the online collectivity of
readers/reviewers, jointly own these essays with their authors.
A final more personal comment: I have always preferred the delivery of a
paper that is a work-in-progress because it is open, unfinished, and in
process of becoming to the finished paper in print because it is closed.
This online review reminds our students that writing is revising.
All best,
Adele Seeff
See in context