This week’s readings on long form argument seem to point to one thing, whether that is explicitly like in “After the Document Model”, or more subtly through their form like the Scalar readings and the Storify article, that is, that scholarly discussion and production is changing. Gone are the days where one’s only option is reading an unchanging document in a book or a journal. As scholarship progresses and changes to accommodate a new wealth of resources, specifically those found online like tweets and videos, technology must move forward with it. If a scholar is discussing a video in their work, it just seems practical for the reader to have immediate access to that video at their disposal. This is one of the many services these (relatively) new forms of scholarly production and long form argument provide.
Now readers and writers of scholarly work have a whole new world of resources to turn to. There is such a growing number of sites and programs devoted to changing the face of academic publication that an author can choose a platform incredibly specific to his or her own purpose. In some ways this makes things easier for the author, but in many it also provides yet more complications. With so many appealing options, the author is faced with a burden of choice, and the lingering knowledge that they could make the wrong choice of platform, and it could destroy the validity of their work. On the other hand however, with the right choice, a new platform could propel their work further than it ever could have gone with a simple print production.
On the whole, it does not seem like there are enough drawbacks to say that this new wealth of options for scholarly production and long form argument is not a very good thing for the world of academia. If nothing else, it simply means that scholarly research is becoming more widespread and easily accessible which seems to me like a very good thing.