Week 9 Practicum: MLA and Zotero Time!

MLA Bibliography:
Äyrämö, Sanna-Mari. “Narrative Constitution for Instructional Game Design: A Semiotic-Cognitive Model of Narrative.” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, 2016, pp. 53–72. JSTOR, doi:10.5250/storyworlds.8.2.0053.
Barthes, Roland. Image, Music, Text. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrrrr.org%2Fdata%2Fedu%2F20110509-cascone%2FBarthes-image_music_text.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct. 2019.
Battigelli, Anna. “The Schema as an Index to Joyce’s Narrative.” James Joyce Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 3, 1985, pp. 319–23. JSTOR.
Benstock, Shari, and Bernard Benstock. “Narrative Sources and the Problem of ‘Ulysses.’” The Journal of Narrative Technique, vol. 12, no. 1, 1982, pp. 24–35. JSTOR.
Fludernik, Monika. “Narrative and Its Development in ‘Ulysses.’” The Journal of Narrative Technique, vol. 16, no. 1, 1986, pp. 15–40. JSTOR.
Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Cornell University Press, 1983.
Homan, Daniel, and Sidney Homan. “The Interactive Theater of Video Games: The Gamer as Playwright, Director, and Actor.” Comparative Drama, vol. 48, no. 1/2, 2014, pp. 169–86. JSTOR.
Jones, Dave. “Narrative Reformulated: Storytelling in Videogames.” CEA Critic, vol. 70, no. 3, 2008, pp. 20–34. JSTOR.
Juul, Jesper. A Clash Between Game and Narrative. https://www.jesperjuul.net/text/clash_between_game_and_narrative.html. Accessed 24 Oct. 2019.
Wells, Lynn. “Virtual Textuality.” Reading Matters, edited by Joseph Tabbi and Michael Wutz, Cornell University Press, 1997, pp. 250–68. JSTOR, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv1nhpv1.16.

While the massive cluster of scholarship within the digital realm may seem overwhelming at first, the categorization of materials is useful to digital scholarship due to the ease and efficiency of access to those categorized materials. While more traditional forms of organization are confined to the size of the physical space where they are being held, the categorization of digital scholarship allows any individual to sort and search through the nearly infinite number of materials with a more personal and refined touch. Digital scholarship gives the leeway for its users to explore and sort through information in their own personal modes of thought, allowing the results to cater towards their exact needs. Through that categorization, any excess/irrelevant information would be sorted out, leaving the more relevant information into the digital scholar’s own hands. Likewise, the categorization of materials also allows an easier and more efficient means to access that information. Instead of schlepping to a library and aimlessly wandering through that physical space, the categorization of materials gives the digital scholar the luxury to easily navigate from any place at any moment in time while also being able to easily locate the necessary material in that physical space.

However, categories and databases can be problematic for some humanities research topics since the information being organized is entirely dependent on the categorizers themselves, who, for better or worse, embody varying perspectives and biases. While the categories and databases may present an obvious means of sorting for one categorizer, another categorizer approaching the same information would possibly disagree on the level of importance given to a certain quality over other qualities found throughout the seemingly ordered information. As Foucault mentions in the introduction of The Order Of Things, An Archaeology Of The Human Sciences, “The fundamental codes of a culture – those governing its language, its schemas of perception, its exchanges, its techniques, its values, the hierarchy of its practices – establish for every man, from the very first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home” (Foucault xx). There may seem a sense of order to one organizer, another seemingly different sense of order could be applied by another organizer. This inconsistency forces certain unique categorizations and/or searches to elude the common “popular” and “relevant” results of a search, disadvantaging the digital scholar themself. Without a more diverse sense of organization that attempts to categorize the information in a more intersectional range, a hegemonic status quo is enforced onto both the digital scholar and the information as well.