The study of artificial intelligence (AI) is indeed a strange pursuit. Unlike most other disciplines, few AI researchers even agree on a mutually acceptable definition of their chosen field of study. Some see AI as a sub field of computer science, others see AI as a computationally oriented branch of psychology or linguistics, while still others see it as a bag of tricks to be applied to an entire spectrum of diverse domains. This lack of unified purpose among the AI community makes this a very exciting time for AI research: new and diverse projects are springing up literally every day. As one might imagine, however, this diversity also leads to genuine difficulties in assessing the significance and validity of AI research. These difficulties are an indication that AI has not yet matured as a science: it is still at the point where people are attempting to lay down (hopefully sound) foundations. Ritchie and Hanna [1] posit the following categorization as an aid in assessing the validity of an AI research endeavor: (1) The project could introduce, in outline, a novel (or partly novel) idea or set of ideas. (2) The project could elaborate the details of some approach. Starting with the kind of idea in (1), the research could criticize it or fill in further details (3) The project could be an AI experiment, where a theory as in (1) and (2) is applied to some domain. Such experiments are usually computer programs that implement a particular theory.

The study of artificial intelligence (AI) is indeed a strange pursuit. Unlike most other disciplines, few AI researchers even agree on a mutually acceptable definition of their chosen field of study. Some see AI as a sub field of computer science, others see AI as a computationally oriented branch of psychology or linguistics, while still others see it as a bag of tricks to be applied to an entire spectrum of diverse domains. This lack of unified purpose among the AI community makes this a very exciting time for AI research: new and diverse projects are springing up literally every day. As one might imagine, however, this diversity also leads to genuine difficulties in assessing the significance and validity of AI research. These difficulties are an indication that AI has not yet matured as a science: it is still at the point where people are attempting to lay down (hopefully sound) foundations. Ritchie and Hanna [1] posit the following categorization as an aid in assessing the validity of an AI research endeavor: (1) The project could introduce, in outline, a novel (or partly novel) idea or set of ideas. (2) The project could elaborate the details of some approach. Starting with the kind of idea in (1), the research could criticize it or fill in further details (3) The project could be an AI experiment, where a theory as in (1) and (2) is applied to some domain. Such experiments are usually computer programs that implement a particular theory.

Contributions by Danielle Christmas, Joanna Davis-McElligatt, Garrett Bridger Gilmore, Spencer R. Herrera, Cassandra Jackson, Stacie McCormick, Maria Seger, Randi Lynn Tanglen, Brook Thomas, Michael C. Weisenburg, and Lisa Woolfork Reading Confederate Monuments addresses the urgent and vital need for scholars, educators, and the general public to be able to read and interpret the literal and cultural Confederate monuments pervading life in the contemporary United States. The literary and cultural studies scholars featured in this collection engage many different archives and methods, demonstrating how to read literal Confederate monuments as texts and in the context of the assortment of literatures that produced and celebrated them. They further explore how to read the literary texts advancing and contesting Confederate ideology in the US cultural imaginary-then and now-as monuments in and of themselves. On top of that, the essays published here lay bare the cultural and pedagogical work of Confederate monuments and counter-monuments-divulging how and what they teach their readers as communal and yet contested narratives-thereby showing why the persistence of Confederate monuments matters greatly to local and national notions of racial justice and belonging. In doing so, this collection illustrates what critics of US literature and culture can offer to ongoing scholarly and public discussions about Confederate monuments and memory. Even as we remove, relocate, and recontextualize the physical symbols of the Confederacy dotting the US landscape, the complicated histories, cultural products, and pedagogies of Confederate ideology remain embedded in the national consciousness. To disrupt and potentially dismantle these enduring narratives alongside the statues themselves, we must be able to recognize, analyze, and resist them in US life. The pieces in this collection position us to think deeply about how and why we should continue that work.

Contributions by Danielle Christmas, Joanna Davis-McElligatt, Garrett Bridger Gilmore, Spencer R. Herrera, Cassandra Jackson, Stacie McCormick, Maria Seger, Randi Lynn Tanglen, Brook Thomas, Michael C. Weisenburg, and Lisa Woolfork Reading Confederate Monuments addresses the urgent and vital need for scholars, educators, and the general public to be able to read and interpret the literal and cultural Confederate monuments pervading life in the contemporary United States. The literary and cultural studies scholars featured in this collection engage many different archives and methods, demonstrating how to read literal Confederate monuments as texts and in the context of the assortment of literatures that produced and celebrated them. They further explore how to read the literary texts advancing and contesting Confederate ideology in the US cultural imaginary-then and now-as monuments in and of themselves. On top of that, the essays published here lay bare the cultural and pedagogical work of Confederate monuments and counter-monuments-divulging how and what they teach their readers as communal and yet contested narratives-thereby showing why the persistence of Confederate monuments matters greatly to local and national notions of racial justice and belonging. In doing so, this collection illustrates what critics of US literature and culture can offer to ongoing scholarly and public discussions about Confederate monuments and memory. Even as we remove, relocate, and recontextualize the physical symbols of the Confederacy dotting the US landscape, the complicated histories, cultural products, and pedagogies of Confederate ideology remain embedded in the national consciousness. To disrupt and potentially dismantle these enduring narratives alongside the statues themselves, we must be able to recognize, analyze, and resist them in US life. The pieces in this collection position us to think deeply about how and why we should continue that work.