I arrived at the National Humanities Center a little past 4 o’clock. The building’s interesting architecture caught my eye but I wasn’t able to take it all in as the talk had already started and I was in a hurry to go inside. I was a little hesitant to sit at one of the tables especially since I couldn’t spot any of my classmates. Nonetheless, I walked around the room and past a number of tables while the talk was going on and claimed a seat only one table away from Ian Bogost. I must admit, I felt the talk did get somewhat stale towards the end, I did have trouble keeping myself engaged with and, in some cases, just understand what Ian Bogost was saying. So much so that I decided to have some of the cashews and peanuts that were on the table in order to keep myself focused. Nonetheless, after getting a feel for the environment and getting on the same page as Ian Bogost, I did find parts of the talk thought-provoking. For instance, Ian Bogost’s depiction of the struggles that come with defining the Digital Humanities made me reflect upon our own discussions and efforts trying to define DH. I also found interesting the comparisons to other fields that have been “digitized” or “made computational.” Ian Bogost made the point that maybe the word Digital in Digital Humanities will be dropped in the future. I can definitely see this as happening because computers and digital media can enhance a field and open doors for more opportunities without necessarily creating a new field. When I think of writing or researching, for example, my mind goes to someone sitting in front of a computer screen for hours browsing the Internet and typing on a word document, even though no one mentioned that the writing or researching is digital. So I can see Digital Humanities ending up the same way.