Popularizing Paradiso: On the Difficulties of Podcasting Dante’s Most Academic Canticle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written and well structured. However, it limits itself to descriptive aspects and does not propose a critical analysis of the evidence it dwells on, e.g. the number of accesses. In addition, it takes a prevalently self-referential turn without adequately contesting the reasons why 'his' podcast has lower ratings than, for example, the one used for comparison, i.e. Mazzotta's podacast. There is no proper analysis in terms of audiences and communication, it is not clear what his target audience is.

I quote from the article: Perhaps then the difference in viewers between our lectures has to do with the difference between viewers of Yo-yo Ma playing Brahms’ Lullaby (1.2 million views) to even fellow professionals in the Newark Symphony Orchestra who have 64,306 views. The difference is still not as stark as the difference in views between Mazzotta’s one lecture and all the podcasts and videos I created combined, but the difference in quality may justify that division. That said, my podcast is only six years old, where Mazzotta’s is now almost fourteen, so there is time yet for my 406 podcast to catch fire and illuminate the world. That said, as of now, I am only short 723 407 subscribers and 3,020 more public watch hours (in the next 365 days) to meet the minimum required standards for being monetized on my own YouTube channel".

A bit hasty to resolve the issue in terms of reputation. I would suggest going into the quality and reliability of the content, the target group, the communication strategy. There is no clear-cut opposition between academic and popular in terms of content as much as in forms and communication models. That is why I would suggest, for the article to contribute more effectively to the discussion on the subject, to make more explicit the methodology, the language used, the different aids used for the construction of the podcats.

I also invite the author to take a more scientific approach when dealing with the subject of the 'popularisation of Dante'. As rightly seems to emerge from the author's words, it is not the fact of having a podcast that makes Dante 'popular' and accessible to the general public, but the reasons must lie in other variables. Now these variables are not critically and dialectically examined, only then can one assess what really makes a podcast more effective than others.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the article entitled “Popularizing Paradiso: On the Difficulties of Podcasting Dante’s most Academic Canticle.” I found the subject unusual, interesting and very topical for our times.  I also found it charming. The author interrogates his/her own presupposition that non-academic treatments should be more popular with the populace.  Instead the author's own research, complete with graphs that reveal demographics as well as relative quantities, demonstrates that the most academic canticle of Dante’s Divine Comedy, treated in the most academic context – a class lecture at Yale University – by the most vetted academic expert on the subject (Professor at Yale, author of books on Dante, former President of the Dante Society of America and former Editor of its journal, Dante Studies) actually does far, far better than the author's own popularizing podcast. The article even narrows it down to the most theological questions about faith and original sin, as those that received the most internet attention. This is an interesting factoid also in relation to the author’s study of theoreticians’ suppositions that taking sacred things online is a form of blasphemy. The author also takes into consideration Columbia University Professor Teodolinda Barolini’s 54-part online course, and refers the reader to lots of online resources and commentary and consideration upon the whole phenomenon.  This in itself is a service.  The article is charming because the author documents his/her own failure, or at least his/her own failure thus far, and acknowledges the undeniable quantitatively measurable online success of the academicians. He/she concludes, against his/her initial instincts, that the reason why a certain excerpt is so re-played is precisely that it is so academic.  It is because it is so enigmatic that it attracts additional attention. The author admits his/her own errors and generous praises the rhetorical flare and articulated brilliance of Mazzotta, comparing him to Yo-yo Ma’s Brahms’s Lullaby (1.2 million views) and his/her own to the Newark Symphony Orechestra (64K views)

A few small notes:

Need “that” added to line 137 “that can really bring Dante to life”

In line 260, I think it should be 24 sessions, or lectures, or classes (not “courses”)

Why does the author call Adam Dante’s fellow poet in 303-304?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research does not present empirical results but discusses the experience of podcasting Dante's "Paradiso" and the accessibility of academic content through digital humanities. The number of uploaded videos and podcast episodes is mentioned, indicating the extent of the work done.

There is no clear presentation of empirical data or analysis of results in the traditional sense, as the focus is on the dissemination of knowledge and the digital humanities approach.

Address the linguistic accuracy by correcting any acknowledged errors in the content for clarity and precision.

Enhance the archival research discussion by exploring the implications of digital access versus physical manuscript handling.

Consider expanding on the concept of archival instability and how it informs digital literary scholarship.

Integrate a more detailed analysis of the new historicist approach to the digital archive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No additional revisions are requested.