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 in this Document
22 March 2013 at 12.58 pm
[...] a content platform, but also as an expressive medium in itself, as Whitney Trettien suggests in a 2010 article. What bothers a Romanian teacher and researcher, however, is the inaccessibility of the new digital [...]
See in context
16 December 2012 at 11.23 pm
[...] [1] [3] Hope, Jonathan, and Michael Witmore. “The Hundredth Psalm to the Tune of ‘Green Sleeves’: Digital Approaches to Shakespeare’s Language of Genre.” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.3 (2010). Also available online. [...]
See in context
16 December 2012 at 9.50 pm
[...] to Shakespeare’s Language of Genre.” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.3 (2010). Also available online. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
See in context
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