Annotation is arguably a piece of art, so it has to be approached respectively. From other readings we covered in the past, it was also fascinating to learn that, although annotation is a genre that has been around for a while, we still do not have a clear definition or set of definitions for what is annotation. This even makes the whole situation even more intriguing and keeps us in suspense.
Elysa Graham’s article, written stylishly, offers a panorama of projects related to the attempts of annotating James Joyce’s celebrated work, Ulysses. A masterpiece of modernism, this 1922 novel, is somewhat problematic in terms of its form and the way we know the novel now. A number of generations of scholars working in textual studies made efforts to produce what could be defined as an ideal, or ideally accurate, Ulysses. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to me that Graham mentions (albeit in passing) Hans Walter Gabler, a German literary scholar responsible for producing what is currently being considered as the complete variant of a critical edition of Joyce’s novel, and barely mentions John Kidd, another scholar of Joyce who once was supposed to prepare “not merely a perfect text, ‘as Joyce wrote it,’ but also a marriage of modern technology and literary genius.” Moreover, the “manifold connections and allusions” would be “instantly visible via hyperlinks, and the common reader would be able to appreciate the infinite recesses of Joyce brilliance.”  Kidd never finished the project, needless to say. It would have been interesting to see if Graham’s piece would say more about which versions of the novels the scholars involved in digital projects typically rely on and if any of them try to do something else than Gabler and Kidd did.
By reading the Graham article, I found out more about Amanda Visconti’s project Infinite Ulysses which key idea was, as I understand, to make the novel available and be annotated by the ordinary users who can create an account, log in and leave their ideas, comments. This is a strikingly great idea, but then I start thinking about scholarly the existing parameters of annotations that are left by the users (if such parameters existed at all). And, in general, would need to have regulations in projects like that? Nonetheless, in a novel as problematic and complicated as Ulysses, having a set of some shared visions towards the annotation process might be a good idea.
Also, I have a general comment regarding the usage of online annotated projects. I wonder if the people working on these projects think about their target audience as they construct sites, divide responsibilities, start work on the texts. If these annotated projects are aimed at undergraduate and graduate students, would those projects help a different audience—say, scholars, working on Joyce professionally. For instance, are these versions going to have new and fresh for scholars and researching working with these texts? And vice versa, of course. What kind of digitally created, hyperlinked platform produced by scholars and researchers would benefit students of different types.
Finally, as I read the Graham piece, I started to think about the possibility (and necessity, why not) of some emuseum devoted entirely to lost digital projects involving annotations. Interestingly enough, in the past, we were thinking of books like vanishing objects, but now we also can start thinking of these online projects, which might end up delve into the abyss without leaving any footprints behind. Some of the projects mentioned by Graham can illustrate this idea.
 Jack Hitt, “The Strange Case of the Missing Joyce Scholar,” New York Times (June 12, 2018).