Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 246.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2023-10-10 07:21:07+00:00
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: Admired Editions

The following note, from textual editor Peter Shillingsburg, 
suggests a parallel or extended question concerning  
digital editions and other products that exhibit admirable 
qualities. It would be enlightening to many here, I suspect, 
were these qualities to be identified and discussed. The 
popularity of digital everything has resulted in a great deal 
of poorly designed products. This is indeed marked by the 
relatively few times in which I am taken aback by a well 
designed one. That's to be expected, I suppose. But Peter's 
question is timely. Do we not need to sort out what works 
well from what does not?

--WM


>        As part of a project on scholarly editing, I request members of
>        STS and ESTS, and anyone who has worked to create a scholarly
>        edition or who has used scholarly editions in ways that deeply
>        engage the introductions and textual apparatus, to identify one or
>        two scholarly editions you most admire as an editorial
>        achievement.  If possible, add a brief note on any reservation you
>        have about the edition or some disagreement you might have with
>        the editorial work.
> 
>              If I receive a significant response, I will write a report
>        and analysis and send it to all who responded and to any others
>        who request it.    No names of responders will be included unless
>        you specifically request that any quotations from your response be
>        sourced.
> 
>              Please send your response to me at
>        peter.shillingsburg@gmail.com
>        I suggest the following form:
> 
>         1.           Identify your most admired scholarly edition
> 
>         2.           specify whether or not you helped create that edition.
> 
>         3.           Identify a reservation about the edition, or error, or
>            something you think should have been done differently, if any.
> 
>         4.             A brief description of your experience in scholarly editing
>            would be a desirable option. NB: Anonymous responses will be
>            appreciated also.
> 
>         5.           As a bonus, identify the worst or most disappointing scholarly
>            edition you have encountered. Optional.




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php