tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6365726521150589993.post6332109424268665608..comments2013-04-03T01:21:52.887-04:00Comments on Dabbling in the Digital : A Jenkinsian Revamp of McGann's "Radiant Textuality" StaciStutsmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756881049673152749noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6365726521150589993.post-68130105468407176082013-02-06T16:54:51.970-05:002013-02-06T16:54:51.970-05:00Yes, you're correct in that reading of my post...Yes, you're correct in that reading of my post. I was not discounting his claims on hypertext, just re-casting his argument in a more contemporary context. I think he has a lot of good ideas- and ones that have contemporary importance that can extend beyond his claims surrounding the IVANHOE game. StaciStutsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756881049673152749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6365726521150589993.post-46795953962313706952013-02-06T15:56:16.287-05:002013-02-06T15:56:16.287-05:00Rather than as a corrective to McGann, mightn'...Rather than as a corrective to McGann, mightn't it be possible to read to read the two as in a deeper harmony? Isn't the IVANHOE game a sort of (as Adam implicitly wonders in his post for this week) fan fiction? Is it worth noting that, in fact, the IVANHOE game (whatever it is) is not tied to any single media? And while the focus of the book is very much on hypertext, it is hypertext as a potential platform of convergence... <br /><br />So, maybe what I'm asking is: are the developments of the last decade such that they not only outpace the particular technology McGann seems most interested in (hypertext) but even the reasons he is interested in hypertext. Stated in other terms: you seem to be saying that you think the shift is essential rather than mere accidental; is that right?Chris Forsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17836702376414908693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6365726521150589993.post-86988040378560442252013-02-06T14:31:50.841-05:002013-02-06T14:31:50.841-05:00Any slippage between DH and NM was unintentional i...Any slippage between DH and NM was unintentional in my post because I do in fact think they are distinct. (As we pointed out in the first day, NM is doing old things to new texts, DH is doing new things to potentially old texts.) The question I was raising, and perhaps I should be more clear about this, is how the changing field of NM (NM that offers possibilities beyond the realm of hypertext) changes the types of things DH can do and to what effect. <br /><br />StaciStutsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756881049673152749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6365726521150589993.post-29061458782467035982013-02-06T13:22:54.951-05:002013-02-06T13:22:54.951-05:00I’m interested, here, in the slippage between—or i...I’m interested, here, in the slippage between—or is it, in truth, the colonization of—DH and(/by) new media. What, after all, is the difference? Two possible answers: (a) NM and DH aren’t really distinct. The separation is political/rhetorical. (b) It’s a question of use. Here McGann might object: NM ought to be classed with other aesthetic objects, while DH doings are toolish, secondary, means to particular, limited/limiting ends. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com