I’ll be honest. Coding, it’s not for me. My time in this course, albeit short (only two months), hasn’t been all that great. I have really struggled comprehending and putting in practice some of the concepts learned through the weeks (see week 4, for instance).
And although i have perserevered, and with the help of my colleagues, been able to make my way through the tough and confusing spots in coding, it’s not something i’ve grown fond of. It just isn’t for me.
Quoting Spanish ex-President Mariano Rajoy: “I’ll do what i can and a bit more even, if it is possible. And i will do everything possible and even the impossible, if the impossible is even possible.” Do not be weirded out the strange message, it’s not a mistranslation. Speaking just wasn’t Rajoy’s strong point. Jokes aside, i believe, despite the obstacles, i’ve risen up to the task, and tried my best even if the result wasn’t all that successful.
Still, i want to commend the effort of the teachers, for they have put their heart and soul to make coding approachable by (in my case) a literal noob. Thank you.
Now, to the topic at hand. Was it all worth it? Suprisingly, i’d say yes. It’s true, i haven’t been thrilled about coding, but i have learned valuable lessons. Not only about coding and different Digital Tools for the Future, but about growing up. Not everything is going to be to my liking, and i have to make do with what i have.
Now, enough talking about me. Nan Da provides an interesting, if overly pessimistic, view on the tools we’ve been learning about these last couple of months.I seem to agree with what Mark Algee-Hewitt says in Criticism, Augmented: Nan Da overly focus on the conflicts between computation OR reading; numbers OR words; statistics OR critical thinking. Yes, i do believe that an overreliance in computing tools can nullify to some degree the human aspect of calm, close research, but also, as Algee-Hewitt affirms, the visualizations produced by EDA do not replace the act of reading but instead redirect it to new ends.
Yes, making a bad use of technology can lead our enterprise into a dead end, or a false solution, but that discredits the interpretive and critial skills of scholars, who have been training their whole lives, and honing their trade to the apex. I believe it is a tool. It does not substitute what there was before, but enchances it with new possibilities and horizons to reach.
Being part of the age of information is an interesting thing. One could argue that we have the biggest amount of data in history at our disposal, but how is one supposed to be able to find what they need in an endless supply of information, data and resources? Well, now i have a couple tricks up my sleeve.
Bibliography
Algee-Hewitt, Mark. Criticism, Augmented. Response to The Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies. April 1st 2019. https://critinq.wordpress.com/2019/03/31/computational-literary-studies-a-critical-inquiry-online-forum/
Europa Press.(2018, March 5th) Rajoy y el trabalenguas de ‘lo posible y lo imposible’ [Video file]. Youtube. 0:50-1:02.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpcF0irjEY&ab_channel=EuropaPress
Nan Z. Da, “The Computational Case Against Computational Literary Studies,” Critical Inquiry 45, no. 3 (2019): 601-639. https://doi.org/10.1086/702594.
Coding our way to the future 
Leave a comment