Critical theory and textual computing: Comments and suggestions

Conclusion

Donald Bruce and I do speak the same theoretical metalanguage, though I suspect that he is considerably more fluent than I in that tongue. Given the variety of responses, including Bruce's favorable reaction, to my attempts to provoke theoretical debate concerning the nature of electronic text as a new object of research, I am considerably more optimistic than his “knowing smile and tears of rage.” It is my contention that researchers in textual computing have significant advantages in reconceptualizing text precisely because computing technology shatters the evident surface structures of text. If electronic text is a radically different object of research, then theoretical models of the kind discussed in this volume should have a significant impact on disciplines which are currently debating the nature and limits of textuality.

I would like to suggest that we, as specialists in textual computing, should make every effort to combine abstract theoretical considerations with clear efforts towards empirical verification. Maintaining that difficult balance between theory, method, and empirical verification is, in my opinion, one of the central contributions that theory of textual computing can make to critical theory in general. The computing environment provides an ideal testing ground for literary theories by encouraging experimentation and verification using real data, an element that is all too often overlooked by many critical theorists.