Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐Form Digital Edition

Abstract Early digital editions were for the most part self‐consciously tentative and experimental. They were published as initial offerings in what were seen as many year multi‐year projects or as experiments in the application of digital media to textual problems. Cædmon’s Hymn: A Multimedia Study, Edition, and Archive was designed to test how digital editions might function as complete, standalone scholarly works. The edition focused on a small text that, although complicated, could nevertheless be digitized quickly, and it engaged in a number of experiments with form. One of the more important conclusions was that print and ‘digital’ are not nearly as oppositional as some popular discussions imply. In this edition, print and screen are used to complement each other by providing the user with different types of information based on the various strengths of the media. This article is part of a Literature Compass special issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’. The special issue is made up of the following pieces: ‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x . ‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x . ‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x . ‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x . ‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x . ‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x . ‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x . ‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x . ‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x . ‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x . ‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x . ‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x . ‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x . ‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.