16.244 styles of publication

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty (w.mccarty@btinternet.com)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 01:27:30 EDT

  • Next message: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty : "16.246 job at UCLA"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 16, No. 244.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                         Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu

       [1] From: Patricia Galloway <galloway@gslis.utexas.edu> (19)
             Subject: Re: 16.241styles of publication

       [2] From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (47)
             Subject: ways of reading publishing

       [3] From: "Nancy Weitz" <nancy.weitz@computing- (6)
             Subject: Re: 16.241styles of publication

             Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 06:22:13 +0100
             From: Patricia Galloway <galloway@gslis.utexas.edu>
             Subject: Re: 16.241styles of publication

    Trust me, not all the sciences produce little bitty papers consisting of
    one perspicuous equation, and scientists like holding things in their
    hands and scribbling on them as well as we do (alas I hear echoes of the
    return of the two cultures...). I can only say: everyone go read Homo
    Academicus! This is about people other than academics holding the keys
    to the gate--and holding them to ransom. Another thing this is
    importantly about is allowing academic libraries to stay afloat--soon
    they won't be able to buy anything except a cable-television-like bundle
    of whatever the publishers are willing to give them. Additionally, as
    the journal publishers lose their stranglehold on the sciences, they
    will begin asking us for page fees (page fees! I hear everyone crying in
    horror) for everything we publish too (as well as charging ridiculous
    subscription fees for our work), and then maybe we will decide that it's
    worth a little rebellion. Further: people who have tenure may be happy
    with the gentlemanly leisure of humanities publication cycles, but those
    of us who don't may not have time to wait.

    Pat Galloway
    University of Texas-Austin

             Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 06:23:14 +0100
             From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
             Subject: ways of reading publishing


    A salty response to your elaboration of your

    > offhand remark about publishing in the humanities vs in physics
    > [which] provoked
    > peppery & puzzled responses.

    I take it that some responses were peppery, others puzzled and
    still others both peppery and puzzled. I raise the stylistice question of
    the disjunctive conjunction because I believe it relates to the
    permutations of discursive practices at which you hint in your outline how
    genre and reading :

    > things usually meant to be read slowly, whose "content" cannot easily or
    > satisfactorily be extracted from the continuous prose with which it is
    > presented, is not ideal because a screen-image is not (at least not yet)
    > good for sustained, careful reading. Therefore, I argue, the Ginsparg
    > mechanism is not such a good fit.>

    Wendell in the same bundle of postings reminds us that

    > A cynic might argue this by asserting that articles in the humanities are
    > written to be printed, not to be read.

    Now I ask how does the act of producing printouts depend upon genre? You
    seem to make a distinction between the book review and the edition that
    echoes some interesting discussions from the last century about the
    relation of paraliterature to the literary.

    Some Humanists work off screen regularly. And indeed use multiple windows
    to work more than one document at a time.

    I would suggest that the "library-mode" of reading is a more generalized
    form of the expert being abreast of the literature. It is a type of
    hunter-gatherer activity that informs the the exchange between experts.

    That an amateur can read in the same mode and "publish" i.e. participate
    in some fashion in the exchanges enriches the intellectual enterprise. It
    reminds me that the best pedagoges and researchers model a behaviour
    in their encounters that exhibits an intellectual and cultural openness.
    The best breathe and act by a simple value : there are
    no naive questions, no stupid questions. (especially if participants are
    willing to "go meta" and ask -- is this time to ask this particular

    Why the science versus humanities formulation of this thread on publishing
    mechanisms? Why map it out on a dichotomy of intermittent versus
    sustained? By analogy one can imagine the peppered and puzzled expressions
    of those that would argue that the advent of television destroyed
    attention spans when asked to consider how channel surfing does not
    require vast amounts of attention (following several narrative lines at

    Your sometimes slow reader,

    Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
    per Interactivity ad Virtuality via Textuality

    --[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 06:23:38 +0100 From: "Nancy Weitz" <nancy.weitz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> Subject: Re: 16.241styles of publication

    > Wendell Piez quips: > A cynic might argue this by asserting that articles in the humanities are > written to be printed, not to be read.

    I thought articles in the Humanities (at least literary criticism) were written to be cited and not read.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 04 2002 - 01:40:40 EDT