Sandra, thanks for putting together such a thoughtful and interesting workshop. It’s funny; I’m so “traditional” in so many ways. I kind of love the craft of conventional academic writing partially, I think, because it didn’t come naturally for. me and the process of training myself to do it was really formative for me. I also really love working with conventional texts! And so I’ve always kind of run from the phrase “digital humanities” but, it turns out, engaging with this material was really useful for thinking about some things I had been thinking about. Also just to be clear I’m a novice to this stuff in a lot of ways; I basically only use Youtube to watch music and makeup tutorials!

In addition to reading the chapter, I watched the video re: JK Rowling and the video re: video game one. I chose the former because I’m often thinking about the relationships between authors and their texts, and the latter because I had just read Against the Fascist Creep by Alexander Reed Ross, which discussed Gamergate a bit, which I had of course heard of, but had no real understanding of because I’m not very online and I don’t know anything about video games. I also watched a few of the tiktoks. I have two questions that might be simpler for you to answer, Sandra: 1) I’m interested in how, in your instructions, you didn’t seem super invested in us sitting down and watching the videos (instead saying we should cook, etc.) I’m just interested, then, in how you see the difference between youtube “culture” and say, podcast culture (that could be an ignorant question – I don’t listen to podcasts either!). 2) Is it a pattern for popular youtubers who are men to have less expensive lighting setups than popular youtubers who are women? I really liked Big Joel, but kept thinking about his lighting in contrast to Ellis’ lighting!

Despite not being invested in Harry Potter or video games, I appreciated the content and more or less agreed with the two videos – though the video game one kind of horrified me because, re: the misogynists, it always truly terrifies me to see for myself what I know theoretically, which is that evil people are also generally truly mediocre people! For me something that was interesting is that the unit of analysis of the two videos I watched seemed to be internet debates about texts as opposed to the texts themselves. And in that sense, both really did feel like a more succinct and clear version of what academics do – and for their succinct quality and clarity, more effective than what many academics do. Something I had been invested in in the community college classroom is making sure students see interpretive work as embodied and relevant, and as something they are ENTITLED to do (as opposed to just “demonstrating skill” in an essay). Something I also always say to students is that writing is merely a form of communication that is more difficult for many, because one doesn’t have gestures, tone of voice, etc. – I think incorporating videos like these into the classroom could generate understanding and conversation about both of these points. I didn’t take the best notes while reading, but something that struck me from the Smyth article was when he said that people really CRAVE hermeneutics. I think that’s true; something I always feel about English majors is we can be so self-conscious about the fact that what we mainly do is interpret texts – but interpreting texts is so important!!! I really am committed to the value of hermeneutics, and I loved the way Smyth talked about this.

But…..not everything is a text! And so where the internet (broadly) scares me, is when it comes to context and history. I used to be of the opinion that the internet created opportunities for community that lots of people might not otherwise have access to. I also used to be of the opinion that the internet made knowledge production more democratic. I don’t think I was wrong, and I still think them in SOME ways…but I think I was always a little bit wrong in some ways, and I also think things have changed. Smyth talked about how the internet is similar to lots of academia but without the same citational practices, and it reminded me of how recently I described Twitter as “the worst traits of academia on meth and without citations.” Like….people tweeting flat-out incorrect things with authority, and then those things going viral. Or…so one really alarming trend I’ve seen lately is people talking about revolutionary leaders or leftist thinkers or…fascists…in a tone that is one that cannot be described as anything other than the same tone as people talk in when they are engaging in fandoms. And leftism should absolutely not be filling the same role in someone’s life as a fandom would. While most of the tiktoks were super cool, there was one that did this “socialists and libertarians are closer than most would like to think” and it was so irresponsible because yes, what we now think of as “libertarians” did appropriate that term from truly left movements, it is what it is now, and i would hope that libertarians and socialists have NOTHING in common! I hesitate to call it “irresponsible” because the person in the video looked so young. But definitely part of a worrisome trend in my opinion, where people start “knowing” things without history or context.

And so quite honestly, when the work is hermeneutics…I do think we English people have something to learn from the Youtubers, as our texts are often boring because they shove a bunch of unnecessary citations in the midst of interpretations that could be exciting otherwise. But history is different. And when various internet platforms worry me lately is when it’s very obvious that the only context for people’s interpretations is the internet. But here again, this is in some ways similar to academia, because lots of academics problems is that the academy is the sole or intensely primary context for analysis.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.