This chapter engages with the Internet as a discursive realm where the profound conflicts generated by settler-colonialism continue to be played out. In the dynamic space of the Internet, Indigenous digital storying is a claim to rhetorical sovereignty that articulates Native self-determination through specific ways of knowing and being. A powerful statement of Indigenous self-determination is the use of mobile locative media – “Mapping Indigenous LA” (Gabrielino/Tongva and Tataviam), Knowing the Land beneath Our Feet (Musqueam), and Finding Sacred Ground (Lakota) – to create a digital remapping of Native geography, denaturalizing settler cartographies and restoring Native storying to the land, while two dominant “digital Native” forms of storying that use the capabilities of virtual media in conjunction with traditional literary genres to instantiate Indigenous cosmologies are the digital film-poems or “poemeos” exemplified by Heid Erdrich’s Anishinaabe storying, aas well as Elizabeth LaPensée’s Anishinaabe/Métis storying through Indigenously-determined digital narrative or videogames.

Learning how to use a printed scholarly edition of a literary work does not come naturally to digital natives. Chapter 3 dramatises the learning curve of coming to grips with scholarly editions of Hamlet, of appreciating the argument that each one mounts about the surviving textual and other materials, and of learning how to appreciate the internal architecture and cross-referencing of editions without hyperlinks.

Different modes of scholarly editing are described, especially the competing methodologies and limits of the necessarily non-definitive Anglo-American critical edition. It professes to present a reading text of the work; the German historical-critical edition represents the work in a more archival fashion.

A case-study of recent attempts to solve the editorial problem of Hamlet is offered via an analysis of the Arden 3, Norton 3 and New Oxford’s editorial rationales. Their common abandonment of belief in bibliographic analysis is questioned. Confusion about the nature of the work-concept as applied to Shakespearean drama is revealed as held in common.