Thoughts Before Class - Week 5

I’m in the Rhetorical Precis group for this week. I choose to read and present “Book Notes: Franco Moretti’s Graphs, Maps, and Trees” by Timothy Burke. I posted my RP and Presentation here.

The further we get into the readings in The Emergence of the Digital Humanities, the more I enjoy them. For this week, first I read “Dimensions.” Overall, I really enjoyed this chapter; however, there were times when I felt bogged down and a little overwhelmed with some of Jones’ writing and explanation. As I was reading, I made sure to have my handy-dandy highlighter close by and I found myself marking all kinds of things that I particularly liked and/or was confused by. I found myself really drawn into his discussion of video games. One part of the chapter focuses on the game Braid. I previously knew of this game; however, I have never played it before. But, Jones’ comments about the game and how it could be read as an allegory for the atomic bomb or the “elusive knowledge of the universe” piqued my interest (51). I went to YouTube and found this trailer for the game. Actually seeing some of the game helped put more of Jones’ discussion into context for me.

Also, within the “Dimensions” chapter, in regard to the game Fez, Jones says, “Though he describes the game world as existing inside a computer, of course gameplay takes place at the boundary of the imaginary computer game world and the player’s physical world” (52). This reminded me of our previous discussion about the “real world” and the “digital world.” Although the players playing the game are in the “real world” they are also present in the “digital world.” So, at what point does a player’s engagement in the digital world of the game diverge from engagement in the “real” world? Or does it? Where exactly is the boundary that separates the imaginary world of the game and the physical world? Is there a pin-pointable boundary between the two?

In the “People” chapter, Jones explains that people’s “very awareness of one another’s presence as the basis for being online has changed overall expectations for the network. In that difference is a context, and arguably, a calling for the digital humanities” (73-74). I think this also ties into some of the earlier discussions we have had about the difference in “real” and digital spaces. At this point in the text, Jones is discussing the shift that occurred online around 2004-2006. During this time, people’s online presence and the nature of their time spent online began to change. Prior to this time, going “online” was an activity the involved going to a specific space; now, however, people don’t “go online.” People ARE online. It’s just become part of the normal day-to-day existence for most people. It’s this nearly permanent state of being online that, I think, calls for the digital humanities. If so much of our life is online, and so much of online activity is focused on social activity and opportunities, then it seems like a shift toward digital humanities would be inevitable. 

Work Cited

Jones, Steven E. The Emergence of the Digital Humanities. Routledge, 2014.