http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing Scholarly Publishing in the Age of the Internet Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:57:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-101 Dave Parry Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:12:48 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-101 I think it is useful to distinguish, as you hint at here, the difference between what is part of the manuscript culture, that is intrinsic to the form of the manuscript, and what is fetishized in the manuscript. Seems to me that a great deal of what is valued in codex books is not actually intrinsic to the book but based on a whole set of other support structures. Just as an example, we tend to think of the book as being self-contained, or a completed argument, which of course it is not. I think it is useful to distinguish, as you hint at here, the difference between what is part of the manuscript culture, that is intrinsic to the form of the manuscript, and what is fetishized in the manuscript. Seems to me that a great deal of what is valued in codex books is not actually intrinsic to the book but based on a whole set of other support structures. Just as an example, we tend to think of the book as being self-contained, or a completed argument, which of course it is not.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-156 David Parry Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:17:06 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-156 This also makes me think of the space and the time of the book. I sometimes argue, mostly for effect, that the time of the book has gone. If we think about how ideas are communicated now the space and time of those communications are increasingly short. I know many professors who will not teach novels longer than 300 pages because students loose interest, or they don’t want to take too much class time to cover one novel when they want to include a variety of viewpoints. Given the abundance of content, quick content becomes key. Long YouTube videos often don’t have an audience. I don’t just mean the end of the book, but rather the end of a librocentric way of thinking, of presenting and storing content. This also makes me think of the space and the time of the book. I sometimes argue, mostly for effect, that the time of the book has gone. If we think about how ideas are communicated now the space and time of those communications are increasingly short. I know many professors who will not teach novels longer than 300 pages because students loose interest, or they don’t want to take too much class time to cover one novel when they want to include a variety of viewpoints. Given the abundance of content, quick content becomes key. Long YouTube videos often don’t have an audience. I don’t just mean the end of the book, but rather the end of a librocentric way of thinking, of presenting and storing content.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-155 David Parry Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:07:41 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-155 Somewhere Marx distinguishes between the mode of inquiry and the mode of presentation. I wonder to what extent that might be useful here. I think about how writing and working through chapters is a mode of inquiry, and only after all that is finished can one write an introduction. And I think this is what makes the introduction often the most useful part of may books, where the author has to sketch her overall argument arc, present a mode of presentation, whereas the chapters reflect more of a mode of inquiry. Both are useful and rely on each other for context and meaning. But I think this is changed in the digital, especially if one “published” during the mode of inquiry. Somewhere Marx distinguishes between the mode of inquiry and the mode of presentation. I wonder to what extent that might be useful here. I think about how writing and working through chapters is a mode of inquiry, and only after all that is finished can one write an introduction. And I think this is what makes the introduction often the most useful part of may books, where the author has to sketch her overall argument arc, present a mode of presentation, whereas the chapters reflect more of a mode of inquiry. Both are useful and rely on each other for context and meaning. But I think this is changed in the digital, especially if one “published” during the mode of inquiry.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-153 Chuck Tryon Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:40:11 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-153 I think this point is an important one. Academic blogging offers an intriguing model for future directions in scholarship. I’m obviously heavily invested in academic blogging as a practice, but the connections and conversations you describe have been instrumental in allowing me to see myself as a part of an academic community rather than an isolated researcher. I think this point is an important one. Academic blogging offers an intriguing model for future directions in scholarship. I’m obviously heavily invested in academic blogging as a practice, but the connections and conversations you describe have been instrumental in allowing me to see myself as a part of an academic community rather than an isolated researcher.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-157 Jason Mittell Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:32:05 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-157 Yes – I see one of the great possibilities of digital publishing is to change the “interfaces” that we use to access knowledge. Books, even with good indexes, lack the ability to search and link in ways that the author did not anticipate. Digital publishing would allow the idea of “emergent indexes and interfaces,” developing from the ways people read & use texts, not the way publishers & authors design them. Yes – I see one of the great possibilities of digital publishing is to change the “interfaces” that we use to access knowledge. Books, even with good indexes, lack the ability to search and link in ways that the author did not anticipate. Digital publishing would allow the idea of “emergent indexes and interfaces,” developing from the ways people read & use texts, not the way publishers & authors design them.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-158 Judd Ruggill Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:31:00 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-158 Perhaps the value of the monograph, then, is in its idea (not necessarily its execution)? Would a digital monograph be any different? Perhaps the value of the monograph, then, is in its idea (not necessarily its execution)? Would a digital monograph be any different?

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-154 Chuck Tryon Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:27 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-154 I value the scholarly monograph for similar reasons, Kathleen. Individual chapters may have appeared elsewhere, but the books that I find most valuable–and return to most often–are doing that kind of synthesis work in their introductions. I value the scholarly monograph for similar reasons, Kathleen. Individual chapters may have appeared elsewhere, but the books that I find most valuable–and return to most often–are doing that kind of synthesis work in their introductions.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-152 Avi Santo Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:09:56 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-152 Absolutely! and not just as add-ons, but as integral ways for re-envisioning both the writing and the scholarly process. I am also intrigued with the opportunities for praxis that digital publishing provide. Absolutely! and not just as add-ons, but as integral ways for re-envisioning both the writing and the scholarly process. I am also intrigued with the opportunities for praxis that digital publishing provide.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-151 Avi Santo Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:04:57 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-151 It seems to me, though, that the monograph is partly valued because it is assumed that the longer your argument, the stronger it must inevitably be. I think many humanities scholars struggle under the constraint of needing to sustain a concise but valuable argument, best expressed in a chapter, an essay, or even a paragraph, across 200+ pages. Many books are only consulted because many only contain a couple of strong paragraphs and a lot of filler. I am not trying to dismiss the monograph, but merely to suggest that a more flexible validation of scholarship is needed, not measured by word counts. Also, it seems to me that the short tenure window for publishing the print monograph is also part of the problem. Often scholarly books are uneven precisely because certain chapters needed more time to bake than their authors could afford to take given the lengthy review processes for print publishing. It seems to me, though, that the monograph is partly valued because it is assumed that the longer your argument, the stronger it must inevitably be. I think many humanities scholars struggle under the constraint of needing to sustain a concise but valuable argument, best expressed in a chapter, an essay, or even a paragraph, across 200+ pages. Many books are only consulted because many only contain a couple of strong paragraphs and a lot of filler. I am not trying to dismiss the monograph, but merely to suggest that a more flexible validation of scholarship is needed, not measured by word counts. Also, it seems to me that the short tenure window for publishing the print monograph is also part of the problem. Often scholarly books are uneven precisely because certain chapters needed more time to bake than their authors could afford to take given the lengthy review processes for print publishing.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/3-the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-150 Avi Santo Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:54:57 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/2007/03/23/the-born-digital-monograph/#comment-150 I see the tendency to consult rather than read scholarly books as partly the result of pressures on scholars to carve out specialized niches that will distinguish them on the job market. There is a tendency to read for how something contributes to one’s own particular argument rather than for the sake of understanding/appreciating someone else’s. One of the possibilities of a digital press might be its potential to allow for targeted conversations to extend out of larger monographs while simultaneously putting these consultants in conversation with one another. Rather than lament the “decline” in literacy, we ought to re-imagine how reading communities might function to build aggregate knowledge. I think you are probably getting to this in the next section… I see the tendency to consult rather than read scholarly books as partly the result of pressures on scholars to carve out specialized niches that will distinguish them on the job market. There is a tendency to read for how something contributes to one’s own particular argument rather than for the sake of understanding/appreciating someone else’s. One of the possibilities of a digital press might be its potential to allow for targeted conversations to extend out of larger monographs while simultaneously putting these consultants in conversation with one another. Rather than lament the “decline” in literacy, we ought to re-imagine how reading communities might function to build aggregate knowledge. I think you are probably getting to this in the next section…

]]>