Tag: Oxygen

Categories
Blog #4

Blog #4

     Marking up my transcription was actually an integral aspect to my understanding of the text. I feel as if being able to analyze the text through breaking down different aspects of the words was really helpful in that it made me feel closer to the actual words and meanings of the text itself. Instead of just reading every small word individually, I was able to see how every word shaped the overall meaning of the text due to tagging.

     I feel as if the Bethlehem memoirs in specific were important with regards to the aspect of understanding how the memoirs interrelate. Our memoirs were different from the other memoirs in that we had several different authors all from the same relative time period, rather than just one single memoir. This method of marking up was also unique with our Bethlehem memoirs in that we had varying accounts of mentioning the word “Lord”, “Savior”, or ”Jesus”. To remain consistent throughout, we decided as a group to tag any occurrences of the Holy Spirit as a person. We had to make some cuts on what should be considered tangible, and what should not be considered taggable. As Pierazzo says, “informed choices need to be made on what to include because it is relevant and what can be safely omitted” (Pierazzo 467).

     Collaborating with the rest of my editorial board (group) also heavily influenced my perspective on the memoirs as a whole. I feel as if when it was just me editing my own memoir, I had a single perspective on which words should be tagged. When I gave it to the rest of my group to revise , they pointed out aspects of my memoir that I hadn’t previously considered taggable, and thus I was able to get a more full sense of my memoir.

     I really enjoyed using TEI with my memoir. I think Pierazzo summarized it best when she said “to all intents and purposes there is no limit to the information one can add to a text—apart, that is, from the limits of imagination” (Pierazzo 466). Using technology to actually be able to analyze all accounts of different aspects of these memoirs was an invaluable opportunity, and is a “much less limiting” medium to engage in analysis. (Pierazzo 464).

     I also believed that learning how to use this software gave me a strong insight on how to apply to this to other literature that I may encounter. I have gotten a much firmer understanding of html and how computer processes and systems work, so I feel like I have a more diverse approach to the digital humanities now. I now have a knack for transcription AND a knack for using the technology associated with analyzing those said transcribed texts.

    Overall, I believe that I have a much more complete and wholistic grasp on the Bethlehem memoirs, but specifically that of Anna Elizabeth Rauch. I now understand more of why she did what she did because I tagged different aspects of her emotions and her health. When I had read the memoir previously, it seemed a little dry, and I was confused about the sequence of events that occurred and why they happened. Now I know how Anna’s emotions and state of mind shaped her journey working in Jamaica on the Mesopotamia plantation.

Categories
Blog #4

blog #4

My group has been working on transcribing writing from the 18th century Moravian culture. The process of marking up our transcriptions has been fascinating. As explained by Tanselle, there are inevitably many differences between our transcriptions and the original text. “Some characteristics of the manuscript are irredeemably lost by transcribing it, for instance the variable shape and spacing of handwritten glyphs versus the constant shape of digital fonts or typescripts,” (464). It is valid that no matter what, there will be discrepancies between the texts. Additionally, there are differences between the pages I transcribed and those of my group members. My group of four people transcribed the Samuel Tippett memoir, each transcribing about 4 pages. While my group and I transcribed the same memoir, there are differences in the way we understood and transcribed our pages. Tanaselle explains that, “Obviously a transcription cannot exactly reproduce the relative precision or carelessness with which handwritten letters are formed, or their relative sizes, or the amount of space between words and lines…The process of selection is inevitably an interpretative act: what we choose to represent and what we do not depends either on the particular vision that we have of a particular manuscript or on practical constraints,” (465). Through the process of marking up our transcriptions, we were able to unify our texts logically. 

Through the process of marking up our texts, we have practiced the concept of close reading. Close reading allowed us to understand the text more deeply than we may have otherwise. We picked up on elements of it that we may not have otherwise and were able to then analyze it. However, choosing which parts of the text to tag was difficult. As Michael Hunter explains, “An electronic edition is like an iceberg, with far more data potentially available than is actually visible on the screen, and this is at the same time a great opportunity and a temptation to overdo things. When so many possibilities exist, there is a danger of technological considerations of what can be done taking priority over intellectual considerations of what is actually desirable or necessary in any particular case,” (167). Our group chose which phrases to tag carefully in order to make sure our pages were cohesive and consistent. Tagging emotions was challenging for my group, because Tippett used lots of emotional words such as love and heart throughout the text. We came to the conclusion that it was best for us to tag words that pertained to Tippett himself, in order to curtail the extent of our tagging.

Categories
Blog #4

Mark Ups

        My group is transcribing writing from 18th century Moravian culture. If you were to look at my digital transcription and the original hand written document they would look incredibly different. Tanselle explains, “Obviously a transcription cannot exactly reproduce the relative precision of carelessness with which handwritten letters are formed or their relative sizes, or the amount of space between words and lines” (465). This point that no transcription will ever look exactly like the original document is important to keep in mind when observing my group’s specific transcription. My group of four people divided up the pages of Samuel Tippett’s memoir and each transcribed four or five pages. The fact that transcriptions cannot perfectly represent the original document implies that there is a lot of room for discrepancies when transcribing the same text. This means that even though my group is transcribing the same story, the way in which I approached and understood my pages is most likely very different  from the way the approached and understood theirs. Pierazzo further supports this point by explaining, “The process of selection is inevitably an interpretive act: what we choose to represent and what we do not depends either on the particular vision that we have of a particular manuscript or on practical constraints” (465). When we went back to our transcription and began the process of mark ups, it provided us with a way of linking our texts together both logically and stylistically.

        When deciding how we wanted to mark up our transcription the hardest element was keeping everything consistent. Michael Hunter explains, “An electronic edition is like an iceberg, with far more data potentially available than is actually visible on the screen, and this is at the same time a great opportunity and a temptation to overdo things” (467). Having the meeting to go over our guildlines was important to make sure our pages matched. The two hardest elements to keep consistent were deciding how we would mark dates and emotions.  Dates were presented to us in a few different ways. Sometimes we would be given a date saying “In the year 1754”. Other times, it was presented without the word year in front of the date, and the final way included the day and month. Eventually, we decided that in our mark ups of dates we would include months, days, and years (like 1754) and we would leave out the word year or years in the mark up. That was a simple decision, but the decision on how we would mark up emotions was much more complicated. Constantly throughout our memoir, Samuel Tippett used words and phrases like, “love”, “heart have felt”, “something in my heart”. All of these phrases seem as if they are portraying emotion, but we did not decide to tag all of them. We decided that we would only tag words, classified as emotions, which are directly related to Tippet himself. This allowed us to not go crazy in our task to tag emotions.

                

Categories
Blog #4

Blog 4

 anderson_annaRosina print The process of marking up my transcription has allowed me to become intimate with my text. It allowed me to be able to understand my text. Marking up my transcription feels as though I am annotating it; I was able to interpret things about Anna Rosina Anderson that I would not have been able to do had I not marked up the text. I was able to understand the role religion played in her life through the amount of times that the word Jesus, god, savior came up. Through marking it up, I was able to learn how often certain words were used, which led me to the conclusion that I drew. In all, I feel as though the process of marking up my transcription has allowed me to be able to understand my text on a level that i otherwise wouldn’t have been able to.The process of collaborating as an editorial board has allowed me to be able to understand how difficult that the decisions can be. I didn’t appreciate the production of edited texts. I always thought that it was pretty easy to be able to produce these texts. However i now know that it is not as easy a task as I had once thought. I worked alone, but I was soon able to discover that group collaboration is much harder. I also had some of the same problems when it came to editorial decisions. One of the things I had to decide was whether or not I wanted to tag every pronoun that referred to a person that I had previously tagged. I decided not to tag every pronoun because I felt as though someone looking would see that a name is tagged and would know who the pronoun referred to. I did not feel as though it was necessary to have dozens of tags in such a short succession all referring to the same person. anderson_annaRosina print 2