Author Archives: Lindsey Roth-Rosen

Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Lecture

I also enjoyed Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s lecture on the future of scholarship and the challenges ahead.  Not only is she a very passionate lecturer, she offered varying perceptions and trials ahead.  Traditional peer review is an archaic model, that being said, most of academia remains fundamentally in that realm.  The adage, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, comes to mind, but this system is broken.  There are gatekeepers in editorial staff and I would assume lots of who knows who in different areas of knowledge.  Although, I think there will still be gatekeepers and a leaning towards an elitist group when (if ever) scholarship shifts over to digital world.  If I could image digital scholarship “reviews” I would assume that it would draw on a larger population than that of the closed doors of established journals and other publications.  We all are under the assumption that if if gets past the gatekeepers, the work is solid and sound, supported and valid.  Post Peer review is just if not more important than the initial screening review.  I found this article, regarding letters to the Editor, an important part of the post peer review, discusses misleading information. 

When input emanates from all sides, not just the top, I would assume one would yield more well-rounded results and more transparency.  Overall this shift needs a revolution to occur, if there are going to be comprehensive changes in this type of review that produces tenure or establishes experts in fields.  In this article from 2012, discusses the hopeful future of online scholarship, with the established journal which has the following tenets in the “How it works section.” 

Authors submit manuscript to Peerage of Science, before submitting to any journal. Submitting Author decides the deadlines for the four stages [timed stages of review] of the process, which are thereafter automatically enforced.  Once submitted, any qualified* non-affiliated** Peer can engage to review the manuscript. (Peerage of Science, Online Journal

That model seems like a promising start.

I think the first steps of establishing scholarship that will force the change the academia mindset, is digital tools in the curriculums of schools at all levels.  This background will be the scaffolding that the digital scholars and traditional scholars will lean on for support and continue to build upon.  If digital scholarship only establishes itself in higher education as it seems to be doing at the moment, this shift needs to proselytize by the next generation of scholars not yet in higher education, the ones who are in grade school now.

Wishful Processing

King’s “Word Processor of the Gods” was an amusing read.  It’s a bit dated (1983) but still holds captures what we all probably thought when our fingers touched keyboards… that the word processor could be construed as a magic machine with the abilities to delete or change our personal histories.

I suppose King having the perspective of an author/writer, was hypothesizing that with the arrival of the word processor, text is made extremely pliable (movable type) and that transformed the way people write/think (similar to Derrida’s pen vs machine).  I think that with each communication method we adopt or adapt to the technology (be it a chisel, plume, chalk, pen, tablet) and they also change the ways which we interact.

Kirschenbaum’s, “The Book-Writing Machine”

Warning: tangents ahead….

What I found interesting about Kirschenbaum”s article “The Book-Writing Machine” (aside from the window being removed and the weight of the computer) was the absurd amount of coincidences that overlapped with Len Deighton’s novel Bomber and the MTST.  It seems like Kismet when Len Deighton was told about IBM’s MTST and that he used it to write his novel, Bomber, .  Was it happenstance that his assistant, Ellenor Handley would be complaining to a typewriter technician, further that the technician was aware of the latest “machine” that could possible aid her in writing or rather rewriting, makes you wonder about what we lose when we rely solely on computer mediated communication, here we see how ideas were shared face-to-face, a solution was produced.  Social media/collaboration back in the 70’s.

I read more on MTST, apparently Jim Henson was requested by IBM to produce a PR film “Paper Explosion” extolling the benefits of MTST: ( and now completely off track…the man at the end film looks like the inspiration for Henson’s muppets Statler and Waldorf (stage left balcony box)

and that Deighton was the first novel to be written via word processed….

I did a quick search and found an article from 2007 (ancient) that states “In Japan, half of the top ten selling works of fiction in the first six months of 2007 were composed on mobile phones.”

any clues as to what could be next…..

DH Definitions: Before, after and now.

1. At the start of class: Digital Humanities could be defined as the broad and fluctuating assortment of an amalgamation of all facets of the established humanities which are connected and/or mediated by technology.

2. End of Class: Digital Humanities could be defined as the radical shift in the traditional humanities that integrates the entire scope of technological interaction which may yield a mixture of collaborative and emerging work.

3. After the discussion in class I believe there is an essential aspect to the digital humanities versus the traditional humanities and that is the coined word “eversion”. All we know to be true within the idea of acquired knowledge has altered and will continue to change. The ability to access, collaborate and build momentum is the central shift. Since technology is allowing for the outsider to enter into a new relationship between the traditional humanities and the digital humanities, this new relationship has endless possibilities in virtually (pun intended) all aspects of knowledge.


SAT. OCT 4, 2013
Karl Kraus, media criticism, and the digital age. With Jonathan Franzen and Clay Shirky. Moderated by Henry Finder.

Jonathan Franzen is the author of the novels “The Twenty-Seventh City,” “Strong Motion,” “The Corrections,” and “Freedom,” parts of which first appeared in The New Yorker. His other books include “The Discomfort Zone: A Personal History” and the essay collections “How to Be Alone” and “Farther Away.” “The Kraus Project,” which contains his translations and free-ranging annotations of the Austrian satirist Karl Kraus, comes out in October.

Clay Shirky is Arts Professor at New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program and a writer in residence at the N.Y.U. Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. He studies the effects of the Internet on society and is the author of “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations” and “Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.”

Henry Finder is the editorial director of The New Yorker.
October 5
90 MINUTES $35
Acura at SIR Stage37
508 West 37th Street