As our study of books nears the modern, digital-age, it is necessary to recognize the challenges that come with what we consider media archaeology. As a field, media archaeology is hard to define as it has no founding institution or principles which scholars may refer to and the advent of today’s ever-evolving digital landscape furthers the ambiguity. 

A strength and a weakness to digital creation is accessibility and its ability to support experimentation by any scholars and creators who can access such technology. The digital democratizes media production and includes more voices in scholarly discourse, however, with a surplus on information comes voices falling into the margins. As highlighted in An Archaeology of Media Archaeology, Huhtamo and Parikka present, “Media archaeologists have concluded that widely endorsed accounts of contemporary media culture and media histories alike often tell only selected parts of the story, and not necessarily correct and relevant parts. Much has been left by the roadside out of negligence or ideological bias” (3). While media archaeology aims to uncover media history that dominant narratives overlook, Huhtamo and Parikka warn against “widely endorsed accounts” as being notable but not neutral. Though such certain aspects of media culture may be widely accepted, they “often tell only selected parts of the story” with what is “selected” being a site of politics and power. What is “correct and relevant” will always be subjective, but it points to exclusion occurring in media archaeology though the discipline having best interests in preservation of varying backgrounds and perspectives. 

In the digital age, accessibility presents an illusion of inclusivity as algorithms and platforming of certain voices make it impossible for all to be heard. While conversations of AI replacing human creativity is ever prevalent today, as a scholar I feel more concerned about what information and narratives are already lost. I will be interested as we move forward into experimental and digital literature to know more about who are the creators behind the archives we observe and if their backgrounds are different than those of traditional literature.