Rethinking Scholarly Commentary in the Age of Google Some Preliminary Meditations on Digital Editions

Main Article Content

Sarah Neville


Recently theorists have suggested that the lens of the social text demystifies an editor’s role, positing that texts may be most profitably constructed as a collective conversation between all of the various agents involved in their production and reception. This paper considers these theories in light of studies of group cognition to suggest that modern readers’ new relationship to digital information upsets an editor’s traditional position as an authority while simultaneously offering a valuable opportunity for reframing discussions about the reliability and accessibility of scholarly evidence.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details



Bevington, David, ed. 2013. William Shakespeare, As You Like It (Modern). Victoria, Canada: Internet Shakespeare Editions. Web. Accessed 21 June 2015.

Brandon, David P. and Andrea B. Hollingshead. 2004. “Transactive Memory Systems in Organizations: Matching Tasks, Expertise, and People”. Organization Science 15:6: 633–44.

Brown, John Russell. 1960. “The Rationale of Old-Spelling Editions of the Plays of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries”. Studies in Bibliography 13: 49– 67.

Cohen, Joshua. 2018. “Stories as Prayer: A Conversation Between Joshua Cohen and Harold Bloom”. Los Angeles Review of Books. 16 August 2018. Web. https://lar-eviewof . Accessed 20 August 2018.

Crompton, Constance, Daniel Powell, Alyssa Arbuckle, Ray Siemens, with Maggie Shirley and the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group. 2014. “Building A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript”. Renaissance and Reformation / Renais-sance et Réforme 37.4: 131–56.

C owa n, Yuri. 2012. “Reading Material Bibliography and Digital Editions”. In Editors, Scholars, and the Social Text, edited by Darcy Cullen, 223–38. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. TC12.1.indd 246/10/19 11:45 AM

Cullen, Darcy. 2012. “The Social Dynamics of Scholarly Editing”. In Editors, Schol-ars, and the Social Text, edited by Darcy Cullen, 3–32. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Daalder, Joost, ed. 2015. Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, The Honest Whore, Part 1 (Modern). Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria: Digital Renaissance Editions. Web. Accessed 5 November 2015.

Delery, Clayton J. 1991. “The Subject Presumed to Know: Implied Authority and Editorial Apparatus”. Te x t 5: 63–80.

Gabler, Hans Walter. 2010. “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition”. Literature Compass 7.2: 43–56. Garber, Marjorie. 2008. Shakespeare and Modern Culture. New York: Random House.

Hirsch, Brett. 2011. “The Kingdom has been Digitized: Electronic Editions of Renais-sance Drama and the Long Shadows of Shakespeare and Print”. Literature Compass8/9: 568 –91.

Jackson, Paul. 2011. “Requirements for an information system to support transactive memory”. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems41: 401–27.

Johnson, Eric, ed. 2015. Open Source Shakespeare. George Mason University. Web. Accessed 5 November 2015.

Lanier, Douglas. 2002. Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, Kyle, Donald Lange and Lynette Gillis. 2005. “Transactive Memory Sys-tems, Learning, and Learning Transfer”. Organization Science 16:6: 581–98.

Lyth, Peter J. 1993. “The history of commercial air transport: A Progress report, 1953–93”. The Journal of Transport History: 166 –203.

Maguire, Laurie E. 1999. “Feminist Editing and the Body of the Text”. In A Compan-ion to Feminist Shakespeare Studies,edited by Dympna Callaghan, 59–79. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

McKenzie, D.F. [1986] 1999. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

McLeod, Randall. 1983. “Gon. No more, the text is foolish”. In The Division of the Kingdoms Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear, edited by Gary Tay l or and Michael Wa r r e n,153–93. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Modern Language Association of America. 2015. “Considering the Scholarly Edition in the Digital Age: A White Paper of the Modern Language Association’s Commit-tee on Scholarly Editions”. Web. 2 September 2015. . Accessed 20 August 2018.

Neville, Sarah. 2014. “Nihil biblicum a me alienum puto: W.W. Greg, Bibliography, and the Sociology of Texts”. Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship 11: 91–112.

Pa l m e r, Carol L. 2004. “Thematic Research Collections”. In A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth, 348–65. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. TC12.1.indd 256/10/19 11:45 AM

Schiff, Stacy. 2006. “Know It All”. The New Yorker, 31 July 2006. Accessed 20 August 2018.

Shapin, Steven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Shillingsburg, Peter. 1996. Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Siemens, Ray, Meagan Ti m n e y, Cara Leitch, Corina Koolen, Alex Garnett, with the ETCL, INKE, and PKP Research Groups. 2012. “Toward modeling the social edition: An approach to understanding the electronic scholarly edition in the context of new and emerging social media”. Literary and Linguistic Computing27: 445–60.

Smith, Martha Nell. 2002. “Computing: What’s American Literary Study Got to Do with IT?” American Literature 74: 833–57.

Spar row, Betsy et al. 2011. “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”. Science 333: 776 – 8.

Straumsheim, Carl. 2015. “Preventing Another #ProQuestGate”. Inside Higher Ed.Inside Higher Ed. Web. Accessed 6 November 2015.

Ta nsell e, G. Thomas. 1989. “Reproductions and Scholarship”. Studies in Bibliography42: 25–54.

Tay l or, Gary. 1993. “The Renaissance and the End of Editing”. In Pa l i m p s e s t : Te x-tual Theory and the Humanities, edited by George Bornstein and Ralph G. Wil-liams, 121–50. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. 1989. “Textual and Sexual Criticism: A Crux in The Comedy of Errors”. Renais-sance Drama 19: 195–225.

Tay l or, Gary, and John L avagn i no, eds. 2007. Thomas Middleton: The Collected Wo rk s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tay l or, Gary, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, eds. 2016 –17. The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wegner, D.M. 1987. “Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind”. In Theories of Group Behaviour, edited by B[rian] Mullen and G[eorge] R. Goentahls, 185–208. New York: Springer Verlag.

Wells, Stanley, and Gary Tay l or. 1979. Modernizing Shakespeare’s Spelling. With Three Studies in the Text of Henry V. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. “The Norton Shakespeare”. n.d. N.p. Web. Accessed 6 November 2015.TC12.1.indd 266/10/19 11:45 AM