As a scholar in a literature department, I end up doing some very odd things. Among these is the development of various pieces of software for the typesetting and production of scholarly articles. I'm also going to be co-supervising some computer science MSc places. This digital inflection then leads me to wonder whether what I do should be termed "digital humanities". Does it matter?

I've already tweeted this a few times, but I'm pleased to announce that, in partnership with PKP (and subject to finding the right candidate) we have a funded place for an MSc in Computer Science at the University of Lincoln to work on open source software for scholarly XML typesetting. The University of Lincoln, in association with the Public Knowledge Project, is pleased to offer a funded place for the MSc by Research in Computer Science.

This piece explores the conceptions of terrorism in two novels that stand separated by the calamitous events of September 11th, 2001: Pynchon's Against the Day and Don DeLillo's Underworld , with special focus upon the genesis of these depictions in Cold War politics and notions of capitalist statehood.

Short answer: very good. This publication, in its sixth volume at the time of writing, is a scholar-led, open-access journal focusing on the "neo-Victorian" period, be that in literature or culture. As can be seen from the data below, I had a relatively quick publication experience with the journal. I had two reviews returned within a very reasonable period and publication followed not too long thereafter.

Although, in some ways, Sarah Waters’s Affinity looks akin to historiographic metafiction, M.-L. Kohlke has persuasively argued that the text is more accurately dubbed “new(meta)realism”, a mode that demonstrates the exhausted potential of the form.

Last week, I was contacted by Elizabeth Gibney, who writes for the Times Higher, with a request for comment on the recent Science-Metrix report, and particularly their findings that papers that were OA had higher citation rates, but gold was not as high as green. Elizabeth has very kindly included some of my response in her article, but I wanted to share my full response below.

Yesterday evening I received a letter from my MP. I reproduce it below, with my response. This is the democracy that we do not want. My response: The Democracy We Do Not Want was originally published by Martin Paul Eve at Martin Paul Eve on August 28, 2013.

So, in conjunction with the amazing people at South End Press -- a group of people unsurpassed in my esteem -- I'm proud to be part of a proposal for the SXSW conference this year. However, we need you to VOTE FOR OUR PANEL at PanelPicker. Please do this. It takes 2 minutes. What are we planning to talk about? How has digital publishing affected small independent presses? Are small independent presses suffering and why?

This week I had the privilege of visiting Japan for the first time to speak with SPARC Japan (in Tokyo) about developments in open access for the humanities. A few interesting points on an OA-front came out of this that are worth sharing for those (much like myself) who primarily operate within an Anglo-American context; I learned a great deal. Firstly, many commentators in Tokyo voiced the argument-by-elitism in slightly different form.

My two spheres of interest -- difficult works of English literature and computer programming (OK, scholarly communications and publishing, also. OK, there are lots more spheres of interest) -- only intersect occasionally. However, in recent days I have been toying with the idea of using git to version control my writing.

Last week saw the descent of some sixty Pynchon scholars upon the small northern city of Durham in the UK. The occasion was the International Pynchon Week conference, this year a co-sponsored event between the University of Durham and the University of Lincoln. The event was organised primarily by Samuel Thomas, of Durham, while I had assisted with various aspects of promotion, web design and suchlike.