Earhart recounts the early history of digitization and the promise that open access to a broader canon (and for a broader readership) would lead towards a post-canonic landscape in which, following Bolter, "'there is no single culture, but aonly a network of interest groups, ... [and consequently] there is no single favorted literature or music.'"

Earhart implies that the shift towards "tool building, visualization, and data mining" has shifted the focus away from digitization (or the creation of usable digital editions) at a time when we're still faced with a "narrow digital canon." And even DH building projects ought to be conscious of the canonic implications.

Discuss the evidence /quotes and examples Earhart provides for the 1990s as a period in which //"for scholars interested in reworking the canon, the web seemed an unfettered space...."

What were the obstacles, what are the obstacles, and what are ways to proceed? How and why is sustainability an issue? What do we make of Margaret Ezell's diagnosis a failure to change the way we think about texts has led to the continued neglect of the non-canonic?