The Janus-Face of Early Modern Literary Studies: Negotiating Boundaries

Now in its fourth year of publication, EMLS is, by many measures, successful. It has about 3,500 regular readers; has now served almost half a million documents; is indexed by MLA, MHRA, and others; and is archived by the National Library. At this juncture, however, questions old and new need to be addressed. From the beginning EMLS has needed to define its role as a new publication in a field characterized by established journals. Therein lay a dilemma: on one hand, the journal needed to take advantage of the electronic medium in order to justify using that medium; on the other hand, the journal needed to seem much like a print journal in order to establish its legitimacy as a scholarly resource. The answer in the beginning was to split EMLS into two distinct sections: the journal proper, and interactive EMLS. The journal "proper," which publishes only fully refereed material, continues to face the old question of the legitimacy of non-paper publishing--the stigma of the pixel as it were. Issues here include not only who is reading the journal, but also what credit is given to those who publish in it, as well as the accessibility, permanence, and locatability of the journal itself.

The other section, interactive EMLS, faces a different set of questions, some old, and others evolving so quickly that they are difficult to identify. A key problem has been that, while the interactive section has had the responsibility to make the most of the electronic medium, its very separation from the refereed section of the journal implies its lesser importance. It is a loosely defined space, potentially exciting and even revolutionary, but also almost completely unrecognized in the system of symbolic capital that powers the academic enterprise. The effort required to fulfil even a fragment of the potential of interactive EMLS requires a commitment that may go completely unrewarded. Beyond this, though, lie questions of just what the section should be doing. From the start, we have been trying to do a bit of everything: we post electronic versions of early modern English texts; we offer scholars a place to post works-in-progress, pre-prints, and conference papers; we offer conferences a place to post calls-for-papers, programs, and registration materials; we host an archive for a listserve, a database on Milton scholarship, and various other resources. Knowing the potential of our medium and not having a mature model to follow, interactive EMLS has tried a great variety of materials and methods; in retrospect, some have been successful, others not. As importantly though, whereas it once seemed possible and even practical to act as an umbrella for a wide variety of internet activities, it is no longer. While EMLS was once one of few early modern scholarly presences on the internet (and is still one of only two entirely electronic journals in its field), it has now been joined by a host of sites, many of which are solely dedicated to individual activities across the range I’ve listed. This said those looking for electronic texts can find them in many archives, and better yet, in the lists of electronic publishers. Many conferences post their own calls and materials; likewise, scholars can circulate pre- and post-print work on their own web pages. Clearly then, the role of interactive EMLS must change; we must see ourselves as one of many resources, focusing our attention on a few activities we can do well. The answer that the editors are now pursuing is to more closely relate the two parts of the journal; the strength of the interactive section is its connection to a strong, refereed journal. We must ask again how we can build on this, how we can add interactivity to what we already do well. This involves keeping the important distinction between refereed and non-refereed material, but also providing clear passageways through the barrier.

My title, "The Janus-Face of Early Modern Literary Studies," alludes to the Roman god and protector of entranceways who was frequently invoked in the Renaissance; he seems appropriate today for EMLS, since it occupies and watches over a liminal space of its own. As in the early modern period, Janus can here be said to be looking back at what has gone before and ahead to what is to come. EMLS proceeds with an eye to maintaining the integrity of the printed scholarly journal, and indeed, in its presentation of articles, EMLS’s face is shaped to resemble as closely as possible those of its well-crafted print cousins. The journal’s other, interactive, face looks to the rapidly developing field of scholarly electronic communications, in which both form and content are unfamiliar and unpredictable. This face seeks shape, being half-formed at best. While it reflects more excitement, it also carries marks of failure and disappointment.

As Willard McCarty has observed, "electronic journals differ from print journals in their ability to connect readers to internet resources of potential interest to them, and, as well, to provide a virtual space for discussion and the exchange of ideas" (). Indeed, these features offer challenges both exciting and daunting, because the potential uses of interactivity are unique to the medium and could thus fill an important niche for the communities the journal serves. Last year, in an assessment of "Recent Trends in Scholarly Electronic Publishing", Ann Okerson (co-editor, with James J. O'Donnell, of the well-known collection Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal) discussed the ways in which the more "venturesome epublications" are beginning to take advantage of the medium's special interactive features, including using sound, video, and soliciting feedback. She ends by noting the following "dilemma" for journal editors and publishers: "a publication based on the print journal model cannot have real interactivity without moving away from paper process and content" (Recent Trends). At the same time that EMLS looks to the conventions of print journalism (such as issue-by-issue publication, ISSN numbers, citation methods, an editorial board and peer-review) to gain acceptance in our community, the electronic medium offers entirely new and different ways of understanding our tasks as editors and the shape of our journal as well. As technology improves and the number of electronic resources for the study of early modern literature expands, we not only need to find ways of keeping up with the pace of growth but also to be able to inform our readers, many of them uncertain of how to use the wealth of materials out there. Our challenge, then, is the following: working within a genre of scholarly publishing that is, on the whole, still engaged in the uphill process of gaining legitimacy in the humanities, how do we take advantage of this dynamism to the fullest extent?

The interactive section came into being with the second issue of EMLS, in mid-1995. Under guidance from our editorial and advisory boards, and with the input of Stephen Matsuba (York) and Jeff Miller (UBC) it was developed as an extension of EMLS, with an eye to fostering an on-line environment for academic interaction within the community of readers we serve. We created sections for works in progress, prepublication and conference material, on-line resources, and virtual seminars, and actively solicited reader contributions. Intended to be expanded through reader participation, it is framed as a group-driven repository of materials of interest; unlike the main journal, it is not refereed, though it is moderated. This interactive section of the journal, we continue to believe, can facilitate the useful, less formal publication of the processes that lie behind the products of our discipline that make up the refereed section.

As Okerson reminds us, "the possibilities are endless" (Recent Trends) for electronic scholarly publishing. This, however, does not mean that achieving a productive scholarly interactivity in a web journal is either easy or straightforward. Rather, another old adage also suits, that of ‘try, try again.’ Several ‘obvious’ uses of interactivity have proven less successful than one might have guessed:

One of our first tries was a virtual seminar, which was proposed and maintained by Luc Borot at Montpellier, France. The topic of the seminar was Renaissance utopian literatures, focusing on More's Utopia. The idea was to allow the participation of anyone with a genuine interest, thus creating a virtual seminar atmosphere among participants from around the world. The virtual seminar was an extension of an actual seminar Luc was giving in Montpellier; every week, someone from that seminar would post a short topic-oriented report to the group for response, and discussion on that topic (or one related to it) would follow for the week, until the next posting of this kind. The course's electronic text of Utopia was edited and graciously provided for the seminar by Lou Burnard of the Oxford Text Archive. A range of participants was involved, from graduate students to senior faculty, and the virtual seminar offered a setting that couldn't be matched in convenience or immediacy for such a gathering.

With such potential, its end result was sadly disappointing. The seminar lasted its duration, but suffered at times from some attributes common to many online discussions carried out in list format. These problematic attributes included a diminishing participation by the members of the virtual group (the problem of 'lurking,' as is said), the fact that people do communicate differently on the internet, and that sometimes losing the visual component one loses a fair bit of information and representation. And there were also technical problems at the end of some of the participants. In fact, the technology that made the seminar possible -- directly (through technical problems) and indirectly (through some aspects inherent in such interaction) -- ended up causing some degree of disconnection. In this instance, the casual seminar atmosphere was difficult to facilitate online; what worked in the classroom didn't translate well to the World Wide Web. Even so, it was a popular seminar, a good experience on the whole and, overall, an excellent attempt on Luc's part, for its time, to bring the model of the seminar to the virtual world.

Other features of the Interactive section have seemed as obviously appropriate for the internet and have brought similar results: not utter failure, but not the success expected. One of these features has been that of "Works-in-Progress." We have made room here (along the model of the Philosophical Pre-print Archive, which has seen good use) for scholars either to get responses from the general readership on papers/editions/books-in-progress that have not yet been submitted to publishers or for scholars to circulate pre-print material, that accepted for publication but not yet gone to press. While this section has seemed a natural application of new technologies, it has not proven popular; few pieces are posted, and feedback has been negligible. Likewise, our "Readers’ Forum," a space for readers to respond to the articles EMLS publishes, is underused: readers rarely take the opportunity to comment in a public way; when they do comment, it is usually to the author directly, via the e-mail address given with the article. Clearly, the opportunity to comment does not mean that readers will. One reason that this result was not expected is the success of list-serves at maintaining a regular stream of communication. Generosity and openness characterize early modern lists such as FICINO and SHAKESPER, but perhaps the very permanence of the interactive journal keeps this space from being as openly used. List-serves are largely ephemeral in form, if not materially; though many are archived and, when so, are searchable, there is an implicit understanding that messages to a list-serve represent thought-in-progress, not final intellectual products with the level of culpability of a printed piece. Comments to Readers’ Forum, on the other hand are precisely not list-serve entries, but rather the carefully crafted pieces (like the articles they comment upon) that scholars usually entrust to the permanence of print publication. While electronic resources often face the blanket charge of being ephemeral, this resistance of scholars to quickly comment on other’s work in the space of the electronic journal speaks otherwise.

Another function we have explored for interactive EMLS has been that of gathering conference materials. We advertise calls for papers, conferences announcements and programs, papers and addresses from past and forthcoming conferences, and other materials like registration information. We have found that, on the whole, conference organizers have been keen on getting the additional publicity from us, and the ability to provide access to conference programs has proved valuable for many of our readers. In addition to posting calls and programs, we have also sought to post conference papers. While we have been successful at procuring individual papers, our attempts to post whole panels (or beyond this, a wide range of papers from a given conference) have met with resistance. On one occasion, editors Joanne Woolway and Jennifer Lewin encouraged the ten members of their workshop at Yale's conference on Edmund Spenser to post their precirculated papers through interactive EMLS in order to facilitate pre-and post-conference discussion amongst themselves and with those unable to attend the conference. However, only a few people responded favorably, and others were confused. It remained unclear what the benefits and responsibilities would be--for example, would the paper-writers be accountable for responding to queries on-line, or at the conference, or in both forums? Would we limit access to the site or leave it open for anyone to post questions? How would the immediacy of this kind of feedback work with the conventional sort that the conference itself set up? The conventional forums for discussion were familiar and proven, and the venture raised more questions than it could answer.

The most frequently visited components of interactive EMLS so far are the sections that contain or link to on-line resources. Our archive of the SHAKSPER list-serve with its many articles and Shakespearian texts serves as an important contribution to on-line scholars of the period. Likewise, we keep an up-to-date listing of calls for conference papers, articles, and submissions to books. In addition to these on-site resources, we list links resources elsewhere on the web, including on-line discussion and news groups, electronic texts of primary and secondary materials, databases, archives, and more. These link pages are edited by Perry Willett, Richard Bear, and David Gants, who ensure that the linked-to resources are of high quality. Print journals can only do so much in listing these resources, while we can update them often and link our readers right to the sites themselves. Our challenge here is with respect to the problem of sheer volume: with on-line resources for our areas of study constantly evolving and being added to the web, the electronic journal is in a unique position to connect readers with them, since the convenience and speed with which we can do so is advantageous (it was mentioned at the MLA a few months ago, that every year, the internet doubles in size, all while losing half of the information that was on it the previous year).

It remains though, that interactivity in a scholarly journal can be more than a well-maintained set of links to web resources. Looking forward, we are planning a new feature provisionally entitled "Dialogues," which, if successful will take advantage of the Internet’s capacity to allow quick communication between interested parties in spite of geographical distance. The challenge of this feature will be to complement the prolific scholarly conversation that exists on list-serves such as SHAKESPER and FICINO. We are asking whether the internet can sustain a highly focused and rigorous examination of a particular issue, and, if so, how. To this end, we are taking an approach different from that of the virtual seminar discussed above. In these Dialogues, three or four notable scholars will debate a topic, proposed by the editors, concerning the study of early modern English literature. These scholars will first write brief position papers, which will be read by the group. They will then write responses, which will also be circulated. At this point, the papers and responses will be posted in the interactive section of the journal. From here, the discussion will be opened to the general readership (the writers of the position papers will be encouraged to continue their participation). Comments from readers will be moderated and posted on the site. After a set period, the authors of the position papers will have an opportunity to make final changes to their papers, which will then be published in the refereed section of the journal.

There are several aspects to this that we feel are important. First, we hope to obviate the perception that interaction on the internet is trivial: limited both to a small group of devotees and to discussions of mechanical matters such as sources, availability of texts, and occasionally, the interpretation of particular texts. We plan to counter this perception by borrowing some of the symbolic capital of print media: we will invite for our primary group scholars already extensively published to discuss an issue of broad importance to the field. Next, to avoid the silence that often results when readership is asked to publically comment on articles in scholarly electronic publications, we will have the primary group begin the discussion by responding to each others’ ideas. We hope that this will ‘break the ice,’ creating an atmosphere that readers will want to join. In addition, the continued participation of the primary group should lend focus to the discussion. In return for bringing their work into this experimental realm, EMLS will publish the papers as a special issue. Our intent here is to bridge the divide between the process and the product of scholarly activity; between the interaction that takes place in conversations either actual or virtual, and the somewhat mystified realm of publishing.

The nature of the topics to be discussed in the Dialogues calls for some comment. We want the topics to be broad enough to interest a wide range of scholars working in early modern studies and to allow the dialogues' major participants some room to maneuver. Equally, we feel that some degree of specificity is necessary to focus the discussion - a particular text, genre, theme or critical aporia, perhaps. The purpose of the interactive dialogues is to create a fast-paced yet structured forum in which scholars can discuss what they feel is of importance to the field now, and so the editors hope both to be responsive to our readership (we are considering a mechanism by which the journal's readers can suggest topics) and to offer topics relevant to the current state of affairs in early modern studies. The topics we are presently considering include a general consideration of the future of early modern studies, the construction of histories of the early modern subject, and the uses of electronic media in the study and teaching of early modern English literature.

To conclude, I’d like to come back to the notion of EMLS occupying a liminal space. What is forward and what is backward depends chiefly on one's footing -- and in the world of electronic publishing that footing is always changing. For EMLS, this has meant being open to charges of novelty by those unsure or skeptical of new technologies in scholarship, and simultaneously being labeled as conservative by some specializing in electronic publishing. These contrary criticisms are probably more a sign of success than failure though, if you allow that innovation necessarily creates discomfort, and that accepted scholarly practices are themselves the result of a long process of precisely such negotiations.

Works Cited (needs to be completed)

Okerson, Ann. "Recent Trends in Scholarly Electronic Publishing" <http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/recent-trends.html>

Notes toward the print version:

I’d like to include ideas expressed by Umberto Eco in The Future of the Book and by Michael Best and others in our recent special issue regarding electronic resources in general and what makes them useful here and now (i.e. why some things work and others don’t)

Also, I’d like to put in references to/draw on reviews by Perry Willett and Sean Lawrence on Internet resources and SHAKESPER.

As already discussed, we’ll include much more info about the journal proper and its genesis, mostly drawn from earlier papers.

Also, I would like to include some discussion of our book reviews--particularly on what advantages we have doing them electronically.

Some discussion of the interface change and the disappearing boundary between EMLS and interactive EMLS

Other ideas?