"The interpretive problems that computers solve are not the ones that have long stumped critics. On the contrary, the technology demands that it be asked only what it can answer..."

The Digital-Humanities Bust

After a decade of investment and hype, what has the field accomplished? Not much.

By Timothy Brennan OCTOBER 15, 2017 

"The digital humanities ignores a nagging theoretical dilemma: The interpretive problems that computers solve are not the ones that have long stumped critics. On the contrary, the technology demands that it be asked only what it can answer, changing the questions to conform to its own limitations. These turn out to be not very interesting. As often happens in computational schemes, DH researchers shrink their inquiries to make them manageable. For example, to build a baseline standard of what constitutes quality, So and Piper posit that "literary excellence" be equated with being reviewed in The New York Times. Such an arbitrary standard would not withstand scrutiny in a non-DH essay. The disturbing possibility is not only that this "cheat" is given a pass (the aura of digital exactness foils the reproaches of laymen), but also that DH methods — operating across incompatible registers of quality and quantity — demand empty signifiers of this sort to set the machine in motion."