"Yet must we really insist that digital texts conform to the standards and hierarchies of the paper world so that we might be able to understand and judge them and hence possibly include them in a cultural studies open-access archive? Is this not to take too little account of the ways in which electronic writing and publishing may differ from that of ink-on-paper, and thus risk restricting the production, publication, and even understanding of electronic texts to that which is merely a repetition of the same, or at least of the very similar? is there not a very real danger here of ignoring or excluding anything that is new, different, innovative, or exceptional, any heterogeneous excess that cannot be recuperated within the logic of identity? To understand the potential of, and the possibilities created by, digital modes of reproduction and publication, shouldn't we also require a certain openness to alterity, to the unknown, the unpredictable, and unexpected, to precisely that which cannot be recognized and subsumed under the familiar?"
-- Gary Hall, Digitize This Book!And please don't think that this matters to me because of issues of technology and innovation alone. It matters to me because it calls for an upending of the academy, an upending of the still oppressive nature of that institution