Works Cited Godard, Barbara, ed. . Toronto: ECW, 1987. Print. Neuman, Shirley, Glennis Stephenson, and Glennis Byron, eds. . Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1993. Print. Neuman, Shirley, and Smaro Kamboureli, eds. . Edmonton, AB: Longspoon, 1986. Print.

Dean Irvine

Since its establishment in 2008, the Editing Modernism in Canada/Édition du modernisme au Canada (EMiC/EmaC) project has partnered with researchers who are committed to digitization projects and collaborated with developers involved in the design of digital tools and repositories for collaborative scholarly editorial work. EMiC/EmaC is a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council-funded Strategic Knowledge Cluster that brings together participants and institutional partners from regions across Canada and from France, England, Belgium, New Zealand, and the United States. EMiC/EmaC's mandate is to facilitate collaboration among its transnational network of researchers and institutions to produce new print and digital editions of Canadian anglophone and francophone modernist texts from the early to mid-twentieth century through collaborative research, networking, and training initiatives.

In collaboration with Library and Archives Canada, EMiC/EmaC has undertaken the digitization of selected fonds of modernist authors, including the literary papers of P.K. Page, Elizabeth Smart, F.R. Scott, Miriam Waddington, and John Glassco. With Paul Hjartarson at the University of Alberta, we are working toward a project that will see the digitization of the Sheila Watson and Wilfred Watson fonds located at archives in Toronto and Edmonton.At the University of Guelph, Alan Filewod and Katherine Harvey have digitized part of the Toby Gordon Ryan Fonds. At the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto, EMiC/EmaC graduate fellow Melissa Dalgliesh is working on a digital edition of Anne Wilkinson's poetry and letters. At Concordia University, Sophie Marcotte is co-director (with François Ricard and Jane Everett, McGill University) of Le groupe de recherche sur Gabrielle Roy, which includes Le projet HyperRoy.Information on Le projet HyperRoy is available at http://www.hyperroy.nt2.uqam.ca/. At St. Thomas University, Tony Tremblay is editing a digital selection of Fred Cogswell's creative and critical works in collaboration with the Electronic Text Centre at the University of New Brunswick. At the University of Victoria,EMiC/EmaC graduate fellows Jana Millar-Usiskin and Leah Ellingwood are digitizing the poetry of Audrey Alexandra Brown and archival materials related to Wyndham Lewis's novel , respectively. At Université de Sherbrooke, Marc Fortin is digitizing selected papers from the Marius Barbeau Fonds at the Museum of Civilization. At the University of British Columbia, EMiC/EmaC graduate fellow Reilly Yeo is working with Mary Chapman on the digitization of the fiction and non-fiction of Edith Eaton, who published under the pseudonym Sui Sin Far. At Dalhousie University, I have co-ordinated a group of graduate and undergraduate students to digitize the collected works of Scott, Smart, and Dorothy Livesay. Also at Dalhousie, EMiC/EmaC postdoctoral fellow Matt Huculak has co-ordinated a second group to digitize the Montreal-based avant-garde magazine . Each of these digitization projects is directed toward the production of digital editions and apparatuses to print editions affiliated with EMiC/EmaC.EMiC/EmaC’s digital initiatives are always in flux. These projects, their participants, and their institutional locations are subject to change.

From the archival and library collections of its institutional partners, EMiC/EmaC produces not digital versions of the same but a different kind of repository—a digital commons. Among the principal differences between an archives and a commons are the collective social production and distribution of resources included in a commons. Rather than an archives or fonds of material attributed to a single creator, a commons is collectively produced by and distributed among the many different workers who contribute their labour to its creation. This notion of a digital commons as a social product and as a source of innovation and creativity is central to the conception of the commons as defined by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (112). For these authors of the (2000), (2004), and (2009) trilogy, the commons is recognized not just as natural resources available for expropriation and privatization but as social phenomena such as ideas, affects, codes, knowledges, information, and images (299). Predicated on the sociality of the commons and the production of social goods, the practices of scholarly collaboration undertaken in the creation of the EMiC/EmaC digital commons are the result of what Hardt and Negri call immaterial labor (132) that perpetually creates an excess that is available to the commons. Theorized over the past decade in response to and elaboration on concepts introduced by Michel Foucault, the commons as deployed by Hardt and Negri is a productive theoretical device for the analysis of gender relations and the labour of women involved in the EMiC/EmaC project.

Although feminist scholars have been critical of what Mary Hawkesworth calls the gendered ontology (357) and what Lee Quinby calls the gender-blindness (240) of the early instalments of Hardt and Negri's trilogy—especially the characterization of the multitude as an ungendered aggregate (Hawkesworth 357)—the 2009 volume specifically addresses the gendering of work and of immaterial labour under the capitalist regime of globalization. The forms of cognitive and affective labour that produce immaterial goods or the immaterial aspects of material goods—such as images, information, knowledge, affects, codes, and social relationships (132)—are not the work of an ungendered multitude. Rather, they are indices of the feminization of work, a phenomenon that Hardt and Negri understand as a process of labor becoming biopolitical, which emphasizes the increasingly blurred boundaries between labour and life, and between production and reproduction. This is a process, they claim, in which putting to work human faculties, competencies, and knowledges—those acquired on the job but, more important, those accumulated outside work interacting with automated and computerized productive systems—is directly productive of value (132–33). In other words, the traditional economic division between productive and reproductive labour breaks down in an era of digitalization, as capitalism moves toward the production of not only digital media as material goods but also the valorization of immaterial forms of cognitive and affective labour necessary to produce those goods. The gendering of the multitude's immaterial labour is generative of the commons as biopolitical; it is a repository whose materiality is subordinated to its sociality, whose gendered production at once constitutes and is constituted by social goods. For the EMiC/EmaC project, the digital commons is conceived as a social good, and its gendering takes place through its creation of value predominantly by women's labour and through its socialization of texts in the processes of marking up semantic and bibliographic codes.

EMiC/EmaC's digital commons is not an archive, even though at times it reproduces the contents of archives. It is actually at two removes from archives—that is, from the institutional repositories that we generally call archives. Between the archives and the commons is an intermediating space, a repository of raw materials for the production of print and digital editions, an excess from which editors may expropriate material for the creation of their editions. This space we call the co-op—or, more affectionately, the coop—since it is produced by co-operative labour and openly shared among project participants. Because of copyright law, the co-op is not open to the general public; it is—for legal reasons that permit the limited reproduction of copyrighted material for educational purposes—restricted to the community of registered EMiC/EmaC participants. Any researcher may request access to the co-op by application to the repository manager or project director. Digital objects deposited in the co-op cannot be restricted for exclusive access or reproduction by one individual or any group of scholars; they are available at any time for use by any and all of the project's participants. Terms of access may be familiar to those who torrent digital content: a user who accesses the co-op is expected to reciprocate by contributing to its productivity, whether by using the material for a digital edition installed in the commons or by adding new content (and thereby contributing labour) to the co-op. Materials from the co-op may be appropriated and transformed by the labour of project participants to become their intellectual property and, in turn, registered under the terms of a Creative Commons licence—or, in the case of print editions, assigned copyright under contract. Except for content already in the public domain, project participants are responsible for securing permissions to reproduce materials from the co-op for public dissemination in the commons. Whether print or digital, all objects remediated by the co-op and made public in the commons are irreducibly collective. The co-op's remediation of the archive foregrounds an editorial collectivity, rendering in reproduction not the archive itself but the labour that reproduces the archive; it is this labour, which may be in turn appropriated by a multitude of present and future editors, that generates the digital edition not as the exclusive content of an individual but as the collaborative product and production of a digital commons.

By way of examples, I want to take a detour into modernism's archives, which is where I discovered print precursors to EMiC/EmaC's digital co-op and commons. First, I will elaborate with examples from Livesay's leftist archive of writing from the 1930s, her collaborations with editors on the construction of her retrospective collections of the 1970s, and my own editorial collaborations as the director of EMiC/EmaC. Second, I will address the issue that the majority of EMiC/EmaC's digital initiatives involve anglophone modernists and speak to the collaboration between F.R. Scott and Anne Hébert in the 1960s as a precursor to unrealized partnerships with francophone scholars and institutions that hold the potential for EMiC/EmaC to engage more fully with Canada's and Quebec's interlingual modernisms. Mediated at once by the gendering of immaterial labour and by the gendering of the commons, these case studies serve as generalizable instances of ways in which the gender relations in authorial and editorial work in print are remediated in digital media.

Livesay's poetry of the 1930s issues from what Cary Nelson calls the decade's progressive conception of culture as a collective project galvanized by a sense of commonality and shared cultural mission (6, 8). This reading of Livesay's leftist archive is adapted from an earlier study of her periodical publications in my 2008 book (48–49). Her leftist archive manifests this collectivism. For instance, her poetry's adaptation of lyrics from International Workers of the World (IWW) songs is a typical leftist cultural practice, one that Hester Furey reads as a modernist intervention in the imaginary (52). IWW songwriters rewrote popular, religious, and patriotic songs in a parodic manner that resembles modernist art functionally, mixing high and low (52). The IWW songbook combined the gestures and functions of missal, manifesto, performance art, poetry, and song in a way that takes issue with traditional representations of its subject matter, working to disrupt and transform the culture it represents (52–3). In the context of the IWW songbook, the notion of originality was irrelevant. The song belonged to the group, not just to the person who wrote it (55). As an extension of this leftist cultural practice, Livesay's borrowings from the politically conscious modernism of the Auden generation are blatant and extensive, and at times her poetry's indenture to some of their best-known poems may seem little more than an apprentice's imitations; yet these are not merely exercises in poetic imitation but localized rearticulations of an international cultural practice on the left. If we attend to Livesay's leftist archive as the collective voice of what Nelson calls a poetry chorus (141), rather than the discrete voices of individual poets or songwriters, we may begin to hear the poly­vocality and intertextuality of her poetry as that of communal, contrapuntal masses. Or, to put it another way, we may begin to read her leftist archive as a production of the commons.

These appropriations from mass and literary culture—alternately and simultaneously proletarian and modernist—mark one of the distinctive features of Livesay's leftist archive. At another time, I argued that Livesay was riven by antimodernist and modernist tendencies and that this divide coincided with the transition of her politics from the Third Period of the early 1930s to the Popular Front of the mid-to-late decade (see Irvine, 29–76). I am not prepared to abandon that narrative of Livesay's 1930s altogether, but I am persuaded by Hardt and Negri's suggestion that a third category produces an alternative space beyond the antimonies of modernism and antimodernism. Altermodernity, as they define it, is an instance of revolutionary modernism's abolition of modernism not by opposition but by rupture and transformation (112–18). As I return to Livesay's leftist archive, I rediscover the ways in which her break with high modernism is effected through her adaptation of material from proletarian and modernist commons that produces an altermodernism.

Livesay's engagement in leftist print culture of the 1930s provides another instance of her production of the commons. The publication of poetry in working-class newspapers—frequently on the features page, along with letters to the editor, notices of events, and recipes—marked the broader transformation of poetry's public and cultural function during the 1930s. According to Nelson, mass readership reinforced the shift in emphasis from the production to the consumption of poems, shifting ownership from author to audience.…Publishing poems in newspapers suggested not so much that poems were utterly expendable and transitory…but rather that their claims to transhistorical values mattered only if they were taken up in people's daily lives (145). For instance, poems published in the Canadian communist paper the between 1935 and 1936 frequently appeared on the same page as cartoons, sports, recipes, and the column which suggests not only the insertion of poetry into a public space directed specifically (though not exclusively) at women but also the gendering of poetry and mass culture in leftist newspapers.Livesay's poetry is included among the poems that appeared on the 's eclectic mass culture pages, alongside the women's column, which included advice and commentary on women's issues, labour and working conditions, domestic management, child rearing, and so on. These poems, like advice columns, could be read as part of the quotidian events of daily living, integrated into a common proletarian culture; they constituted a working-women's commons.

Livesay returned to her leftist archive for the multigeneric documentary memoir in 1977, she reconstituted the commons for a reconfigured audience. Livesay worked on the text in collaboration with editors David Arnason and Kim Todd, and this collaborative character of the text's production is key to its montage effects, multiple voices, and mixed media. Subtitled , it is a compendium of leftist culture during a decade that extends from the Comintern's Third Period to the Popular Front, the Spanish Civil War , and the beginning of the Second World War . It is a scrapbook of Livesay's twenties in the 1930s, one that intersperses her memoirs among reproductions of poetry, short stories, reportage, essays, mass chants, interviews, diary entries, newspaper clippings, political pamphlets, posters, magazine covers, radio scripts, photographs, film stills, paintings, drawings, linocut and woodcut prints, and even a menu from the Bloor Street diner that Livesay and her sister Sophie ran in the late 1920s. Its reproduction of materials selected from Livesay's papers now dispersed among repositories across Canada offers the reader limited access to her leftist archives. Given that her recollection of the 1930s is mediated by the New Left's nostalgia for the Old Left, it is fair to say that provides only restricted access to her leftist archives. What appears to be a comprehensive documentary of the decade is inevitably a selective and constructed series of documents contextualized by the apparatus of the memoir narrative. For every item reproduced in , there are a dozen others—many in multiple versions—that might have taken its place.

When I embarked at the beginning of the EMiC/EmaC project with the idea of producing a critical edition of , I was at once mindful of the editorial collaboration that led to the construction of the text and aware of the masses of material that remained in Livesay's archives. A decade earlier, I spent my twenties in the 1990s researching her poetry and tracking down fugitive pieces in newspapers, magazines, and archives. The result of that search was (1998), a selection of what I estimated to be roughly a quarter of the poems that Livesay left out of her book collections at the time of her death in 1996. According to my rationale at that time, the edition extended Livesay's own practice of selective recovery from her unpublished and uncollected work for retrospective collections published in the 1970s and 1980s. Her published body of work still stands where I left it in 1998. Not long after I started teaching at Dalhousie in 2003, I met a fellow leftist who came to spend his twenties with me studying leftist-modernist Canadian literature for his master's and doctoral research. Since 2008, Bart Vautour and I have worked with a group of graduate and undergraduate students—Vanessa Lent, Kim Johnson, Katherine Adair, Jenner Brooker, Christine Handley, and Leslie Gallagher—on the digitization of Livesay's writing from the late 1920s to the mid-1940s. We arrived at the dates of this long decade by using her enrolment at the University of Toronto in 1928 as the start and the publication of her retrospective volume of 1930s poetry in 1944 as the end. Organized around a projected critically edited print volume of , the next stage of digitization of material from Livesay's long 1930s extends not only to documents located in her disparate fonds deposited at institutions across Canada but also to museums, libraries, and other archives with holdings of originals unavailable in any of her fonds or inaccessible to us at Dalhousie. All of these materials will be encoded with metadata and uploaded to the EMiC/EmaC co-op, where they will be accessible to all project participants, and from there edited and published in the commons as a digital companion to the print edition of , where they will be accessible to the public.

Subsequent stages of the project will move through the processes of image-based editing and the implementation of text-analysis visualization tools as integral components of reading Livesay's leftist archive in a digital environment. Rather than following past practices of transcribing texts and marking up transcriptions in the creation of electronic texts, EMiC/EmaC and its partners are pioneering image-based editing, semantic markup, analysis, and visualization of texts in a field of emergent practices in digital humanities scholarship. Instead of producing reading environments based on linear-discursive transcriptions of texts, EMiC/EmaC is producing, in collaboration with its partners, techniques and technologies for encoding and interpreting the complex relations among large collections of visual and audial objects in non-linear reading environments. What these interactive text-analysis and visualization tools offer is the means to transform readers into producers, not just consumers, of digital texts. Readers who use these digital tools become producers of aesthetic objects; they, too, become producers of the commons.

With a project such as EMiC/EmaC, its sociality issues from collaborations among its participants in the production of the digital co-op and commons. Our partnerships with developers of the Image Markup Tool at the University of Victoria and the Text-Image Linking Environment at the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities have provided us with prototypes for the tools that can be used for the creation of image-based digital editions. And our partnership with the Islandora project at the University of Prince Edward Island has allowed us to test an automated text-ingestion workflow that uses a Drupal interface and stores digital objects and metadata in a Fedora Commons repository. Most important to the EMiC/EmaC project has not just been the partnerships on an institutional level but the collaborations among programmers and digital humanists; that is, our value as a project accrues according to the production of digital knowledges as social goods.For an overview of EMiC/EmaC's digital initiatives, see Irvine and Timney.

That our project has now evolved from its own network of collaboration to a much larger-scale partnership with the Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory/Collaboratoire scientifique des écrits du Canada (CWRC/CSÉC),For more information about the Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory/Collaboratoire scientifique des écrits du Canada, see http://www.cwrc.ca. directed by Susan Brown at the University of Alberta, speaks to the extensibility of EMiC/EmaC's commons into the multilingual environments of Canadian literatures. This partnership offers the technological and infrastructural means to transform ways in which the predominantly anglophone EMiC/EmaC scholarly community could and should work to engage with francophone groups affiliated with Le Centre de recherche interuniversitiare sur la littérature et la culture québécoises (CRILCQ)—notably Le Centre Anne-Hébert at l'Université de Sherbrooke, Le Centre Hector-De Saint-Denys-Garneau at l'Université Laval, and Le Centre d'archives Gaston-Miron at l'Université de Montréal.Refer to these organizations' websites for further details: The Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory/Le Collaboratoire scientifique des écrits du Canada, http://www.cwrc.ca; Le Centre de recherche interuniversitiare sur la littérature et la culture québécoises, http://www.crilcq.org; Le Centre Anne-Hébert at l'Université de Sherbrooke, http://www.usherbrooke.ca/centreanne-hebert/; Le Centre Hector-De Saint-Denys-Garneau at l'Université Laval, http://www.crilcq.org/centregarneau/; and Le Centre d'archives Gaston-Miron at l'Université de Montréal, http://www.crlq.umontreal.ca/CAGM/. EMiC/EmaC needs to translate itself into a digital commons that opens itself up not just to speak in translation with francophone modernist scholars in Quebec but one that engages with a transnational community of digital modernists working in multilingual digital environments. To this end, I want to address the ways in which EMiC/EmaC's partnership with the CWRC/CSÉC presents opportunities for new collaborative editorial initiatives that seek to translate across the multilingual terrain of international and transnational modernisms. In particular, I want to speak to EMiC/EmaC's plan to contribute to the CWRC/CSÉC commons, which could serve as a repository for Canada's and Quebec's anglophone and francophone lost modernists.

EMiC/EmaC was never intended at its inception to be an exclusively anglophone initiative, and somehow our invitations to colleagues in Quebec to join our project got lost, fell into gaps of mistranslation. When I look at the network of projects and institutions affiliated with CRILCQ, it is not difficult to understand why EMiC/EmaC's invitation might seem like an unnecessary intrusion into an already extensive community of researchers. In dialogue with EMiC/EmaC collaborator Sophie Marcotte, I have recognized my own inabilities to reach out from English Canada EMiC/EmaC's network into Quebec. Co-organized by Marcotte and EMiC/EmaC graduate fellow Vanessa Lent, the bilingual Association des littératures canadiennes et québécoise/Association for Canadian and Québec Literatures (ALCQ/ACQL) panels at Congress 2011 () is one kind of invitation to bridge the gap between francophone and anglophone modernist studies in Canada and Quebec. Another invitation is EMiC/EmaC's bilingual colloquium in June 2012 in Paris, co-organized by myself, Marta Dvorak at the Nouvelle Sorbonne, Kit Dobson at Mount Royal University, and postdoctoral fellow Matt Huculak at Dalhousie. Our colloquium title, , is taken from Malcolm Cowley's famous study of the Lost Generation of American expatriates living in Paris in the 1920s. Cowley was but one of the many Anglo-American chroniclers of the tipsy twenties who was not particularly attentive to Canada's modernists in Paris; they have become another kind of lost generation—except to those of us who are inclined to read Morley Callaghan's or John Glassco's alongside their more celebrated contemporaries. In the translation from Paris to North America, Canada's modernists got lost in a breakdown of transatlantic communication. When I speak of Canada's lost generation, I do not speak exclusively of modernists who gravitated to Paris in the first half of the twentieth century. These included writers such as Marius Barbeau, Marcel Dugas, Mavis Gallant, Alain Grandbois, Anne Hébert, Dorothy Livesay, Jean-Aubert Loranger, Gaston Miron, Thérèse Renaud, Mordecai Richler, and Sheila Watson and artists such as Paul-Émile Borduas, Emily Carr, A.Y. Jackson, Fernand Leduc, Alfred Pellan, and Jean-Paul Riopelle. And I certainly do not speak exclusively to those anglophone expatriates who moved in the same circles as Gertrude Stein, James Joyce, and Ernest Hemingway. Rather, when I speak of Canada's lost generation, I refer to two generations of anglophone and francophone modernists whose novels and short stories and poems have fallen out of print, whose canvasses and sculptures are stored away in the back rooms of museums, whose unpublished papers reside in archives and in the basements of descendants, whose plays have gone unperformed for decades. At the same time, Canada's and Quebec's modernists have been lost to each other. As conspicuous as the absence of Canada's modernists from literary histories and memoirs of the Lost Generation is the relative absence of francophone modernists from anglophone narratives of modernism in Canada and, conversely, the absence of anglophone modernists from francophone narratives of modernism in Quebec. While attempts to translate across this linguistic divide were made by anglophone modernists such as Scott and Glassco in their anthologies of the 1960s and 1970s and with the publication of francophone modernists in translation in the journal (1969–), these projects for the most part disappeared with the passing of the modernist authors and translators who initiated them. For each of Canada's official linguistic communities, the other stands as a lost generation of modernists; each is exiled from the other.

In preparing for the ALCQ/ACQL panels and the Paris colloquium, we encountered what might seem like the most obvious of problems: how do we translate EMic? After a few attempts, we arrived at L'Édition du modernisme au Canada, which compresses into the acronym Emac, with its French petit-a signaling its différance. This collaborative act of translation was made via communication among EMiC/EmaC-affiliated scholars in Quebec and France as well as Eastern and Western Canada, a communicative circuit that represents in miniature the international and transnational routes of an interlingual modernism. Because Canada's modernism was at once cosmopolitan and multilingual, its relationship to the many languages of international and transnational modernisms needs to be articulated in an environment such as CWRC/CSÉC that facilitates interlingual communication and collaboration.

One instance of modernist anglophone–francophone collaboration can be found in the 1970 collection , co-authored by F.R. Scott and Anne Hébert, which brings together a pair of texts previously published in 1960 and 1962 with an introduction by Northrop Frye. A critical edition of the is currently in preparation by Patricia Godbout at Le Centre Anne-Hébert, as part of the poetry volume included in the projected multivolume , under the direction of Nathalie Watteyene.See Godbout for a history and analysis of the Scott and Hébert collaboration. As an editor (with Robert G. May) of a two-volume critical edition of Scott's poems and translations (see Irvine, 68–80), I have a particular interest in this edition of the , not least because it will be contextualized by scholarly editorial work on Hébert's poetry itself. While the is chiefly recognized for its insight into Scott's process of translation and notable for its inclusion of multiple translated versions of as well as correspondence between author and translator, its appearance in a critical edition alongside Hébert's poems will add yet another dialogic dimension by embedding it in an apparatus that documents her process of composition. That genetic process is one element that Scott could not account for in his translation of the final version of the poem; nor, as Scott's editor, is it a process that I could document in a critical edition of his poems and translations. The parallel but separate production of the Scott and Hébert critical editions is exemplary of both the untranslated gap between anglophone and francophone modernisms and the absence of bilingual infrastructure to facilitate communication between scholarly communities in Canada and Quebec. As an anglophone editor preparing a critical edition that includes Scott's translations of Hébert, I have benefited from the scholarship published in and no doubt my work will be illuminated by the critical edition of Hébert's poetry and her dialogue with Scott on translation. While in no way do I want to diminish the importance of publishing critical editions in print volumes, I am convinced that we have an extraordinary opportunity to extend the dialogue that Scott and Hébert initiated in the 1960s into the twenty-first century and facilitate collaboration among scholarly editors, critics, and literary historians who are working on anglophone and francophone modernisms in Canada and Quebec.

If, for instance, we were to direct our projects toward the production of a digital commons that included both Scott and Hébert, it would not only generate new possibilities for interpretation across Canada's multilingual modernisms but also engage francophone and anglophone researchers in a common research environment. This would activate one of the principal functions of the digital commons as a socialized space, a collaborative and distributed network whose sociality is constituted by collective immaterial (cognitive and affective) labour and, therefore, by the production of value through the generation of social relationships between anglophone and francophone linguistic communities. At workshops and conferences organized by Susan Brown and others working on the CWRC/CSÉC project, I have listened to prominent francophone researchers such as Marie Carrière, Lucie Hotte, and Chantal Savoie speak to some of the ways in which digital technologies are providing new tools and methodologies for scholarship on women writers in Quebec and French Canada. Given that the lead initiative for CWRC/CSÉC is the Canadian Women's Writing Project, EMiC/EmaC's partnership with this feminist project is predicated upon the collective labour of women's work as both literary scholars and digital humanists. Furthermore, this partnership corresponds to the gendering of predominantly women's labour in EMiC/EmaC, its production of a digital commons, and its federation with CWRC/CSÉC's commons. If this partnership can serve as a means of transforming modernist studies from a field that until recently had been considered predominantly masculinist in its neglect of women authors and by its domination by male scholars (see Brandt and Godard), and if it can manage the co-ordination of anglophone and francophone modernist scholarship, it is reasonable to suggest that the CWRC/CSÉC–EMiC/EmaC partnership is well positioned to effect a radical transfiguration of modernist studies in Canada and Quebec. Indeed, this partnership has the means to produce the kind of transvaluation of Canadian and Quebecois modernism that Hardt and Negri would call altermodernism; it has the necessary capacities, in other words, to generate Canada's and Quebec's altermodernist commons.

Insofar as EMiC/EmaC and its digital initiatives stem in part from editorial projects that I started when I was a graduate student, it is my hope that by providing the tools and training for and collaborating with emerging scholars that my editorial work and scholarship on modernist Canadian women in particular will continue to unfold into the next generation and beyond. It has not gone unnoticed by me—or, I expect, anyone else involved—that the majority of students working on the Livesay digitization project have been women and that they are working on an editorial initiative that is directed by two male collaborators. True, we are all collaborating, but in the end only two of us (both male) are seeing the project through from start to finish and receiving recognition as co-editors. This gender dynamic is typical not just of other digitization projects currently supervised by other EMiC/EmaC faculty participants but of the project as a whole, at least insofar as I am directing a group of predominantly female emerging scholars who are receiving training in the digital humanities. If, for example, we take the enrolments at University of Victoria's Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) that EMiC/EmaC participants attended in 2009, 2010, and 2011, women have accounted for an average of 82 per cent of our graduate student cohort and 63 per cent of our total number.In 2009, women accounted for 87 per cent of our graduate student cohort and 63 per cent of our total number; in 2010, they accounted for 88 per cent of our graduate student cohort and 72 per cent of our total; and in 2011, they accounted for 70 per cent of our graduate student cohort and 53 per cent of our total. This must be a promising sign for the future of the digital humanities and modernist studies in Canada, and it may speak to a generational shift underway among graduate students who choose to work on modernist literatures in Canada. One of the principal ways in which EMiC/EmaC has facilitated recognition of the labour of its female researchers and research assistants is through its community blog (http://editingmodernism.ca/community), where students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty post stories about their work in progress. We launched the blog in the summer of 2010, and from the onset it has been consistently populated by a community of women proportionate to the project's gender demographics (in the first year, over 75 per cent of the posts were by women). In addition, EMiC/EmaC's digital training was originated by Meagan Timney, our project's first postdoctoral fellow, who designed and taught a seminar at DHSI 2011 on the production of digital editions. This seminar and other training initiatives launched by EMiC/EmaC have been designed to facilitate the work of emerging scholars on their own editorial projects. If the distribution of graduate student stipends and postdoctoral fellowships in support of their own editorial projects is some indication, women account for over 80 per cent of the recipients of funding from the project. As we move forward with the development of the EMiC/EmaC co-op and commons, I will continue to track the ways in which gender inflects our networks of collaboration and the composition of our repositories. Rather than reserving the majority of our resources for distribution to faculty, EMiC/EmaC aims to instantiate a rupture and transformation of modernist studies in Canada through its training of a multitude whose collective labour shares in the production of the commons. If, at least in the context of EMiC/EmaC, women are the multitude who is principally responsible for the production of the commons, it stands to reason that the future of our project and of modernist studies in Canada and Quebec will be radically transformed by their labour.