In the opening of Eliot's essay "Ulysses, Order, and Myth," he states, "Mr Joyce's book has been out long enough for no more general expression of praise, or expostulation with its detractors, to be necessary; and it has not been long enough for any attempt at a complete measurement of its place and significance to be possible (Eliot, pg 128)." This statement seems to connect to Foucault's statement, "It [the archive] emerges in fragments, regions, and levels, more fully no doubt, and with greater sharpness, the greater the times that separates us from it: at most, were it not for the rarity of the documents, the greater chronological distance would be necessary to analyze it (Foucault, pg 130)." Both bring up an interesting point. How do we know in the present when an item is significant enough to include in the archive? Even Eliot, as he recognizes the importance of Joyce's work, cannot clearly say that it will be important for future generations. It is undoubtedly true that Foucault's assertion that a common discourse exists which provides the boundaries for the archive. However, only time can tell if those fragments will remain important.

Today, archiving literary materials is both easier and more challenging. It is easier because institutions and archives that already have a tradition of collecting literature can use their collection development policy (the boundaries Foucault talks about) within which they collect. The difficulty is the format of the materials we are acquiring. With podcasts, blogs, and other digital material expressing profound and important fragments of our time and the possible deterioration of these materials and loss of these materials for all sorts of reasons, the challenge of digital content disappearing and changing daily presents new and exciting challenges. In addition, with the variety of discourse and points of view available in present-day literature and new modes of publishing, how do we ensure we capture "the right things" as we continue to build the archive?