Re: Electronic Tools and Research
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 831. Tuesday, 23 November 1993.
From: Paul Austin <
Date: Monday, 22 Nov 93 10:26:09 EST
Apologies in advance if we are getting off of the topic. I'll take this offline
RE: resistance to research tools
1. I had to walk in the snow, too. Storms in Oswego are like the one
immortalised in "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". It proves I
have spunk or determination to have fought 6 foot drifts to get to the
library or just to get to class, sure. But whenever I had to write a
paper (whether I typed it, wrote it by hand, or smashed it out on a
PC), all the technology in the world didn't fool Dr. Brooke Pierce.
It just helped me type and produce the paper faster.
2. As a result of using whatever technology, I don't think I put anyone
on the unemployment line, except people who made pencils, perhaps.
The librarians still have to provide all that stuff for me to dive
through, too, whether it's electric or not.
RE: Who employs me...
...has no bearing in the argument about the neutrality of technology.
I will say that I still read my hardcopy Riverside edition of the
Shakespeare (can't afford it on CD rom and wouldn't read it anyway -
hurts my eyes). But even without this technology, all sorts of
unscrupulous people use Bartlett's to spruce up their speeches without
'doing the research' or reading the real stuff. So don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater. It's to what end you use the technology
that makes you (insert negative word here). As an example I cite
all the spellcheckers or grammar checking software which people
use with impunity here. It still doesn't make them better spellers
and it still takes a brain to notice that although "affect" is
spelled correctly, the spellchecker won't tell you that you
really need the word "effect". And no, I am not a computing
major; I got my BA in English. I've 'done the work'.
PS - and if anyone can get me OUT of this job PLEASE DO!