Idealistic Tinker Toy

Text modeling is creating a representation of something that we want to exist, particularly in a digital sense when discussing it in our Digital Humanities course. Jeremy’s term “toy” and Lora’s term “motherboard” as appropriate terms for text modeling aligns well with Willard McCarty‘s article and discussion on Text Modeling. Referring to Text Modeling as a “toy” is particularly significant and accurate because it as McCarty states Text Modeling is a model that is

by nature a simplified and therefore fictional or idealized representation, often taking quite a rough-and-ready form: hence the term ‘tinker toy’ model from physics, accurately suggesting play, relative crudity, and heuristic purpose.

This notion of the idealized tinker toy model implies a malleable structure and idea that we can play with and bring into existence. I think a good way of approaching text modeling is thinking about it as an abstract and ideal blueprint for a rough ideal tinker toy that we are trying to access and create. Text modeling existence begins as an intangible thought with heuristic and boundless qualities. As the process and model is manipulated and built into existence human error and subjectivity begins to take precedence. The interesting and unique feature of text modeling is the boundless quality of the initial thought process. 

 

Markup & Hierarchy

Desmond Schmidt explores the difficulties and technical setbacks of markup in the humanities department in his article “The inadequacy of embedded markup for cultural heritage texts”. A couple of the major setbacks that Schmidt discusses and that we briefly talked about in class are the problems of hierarchy and subjectivity. To begin with Schmidt describes cultural heritage texts as “historical works that have become an object of study” (Schmidt 338). This definition implies unavoidable subjectivity and a system of hierarchy. Markup itself as Peter discussed in his seminar was primarily concerned with the layout, headings, columns, white space etc. It was not concerned with the content, however, this idea of markup has shifted over time and has become a way in which we interact and influence the text. As McGann has stated, the markup and punctuation influence the interpretation of the text. This subjectivity and interpretation speaks to the hierarchy of ‘cultural heritage texts’ because there is the assumption that a hierarchy inherently exists in texts. Schmidt describes this by stating that:

In OHCO the ‘ordering’ comes from the fact that texts are linear: the objects of which they are composed succeed one another, and the objects themselves are hierarchical because structures like chapters, paragraphs, sentences and prose quotations ‘nest inside one another like Chinese boxes’ (341)     

He goes on to argue the significance of this is that this hierarchical ordering of content objects is flawed outside of the practical and digital computerization process. This has begun to be fixed and discussed in new ways, but the overlapping structures, multiple perspectives and hierarchies are still a major problem in markup. As we discussed in class how can we manipulate and refigure it or do we need to start from scratch? 

Electronic Scholarly Editing

In Martha Nell Smith’s article, “Electronic Scholarly Editing” Smith declares that she is discussing “the effects and meanings of the kinds of electronic scholarly editing, work extending well beyond the spatial and typographically fixed limitations of the codex” (Smith). The class discussion and presentation on February 12^th as well as Martha Nell Smith’s article on electronic editing presents the notion of differing and changing forms of editing and how they differ according to their application. As Smith’s quote above states, electronic scholarly editing introduces a spatially mobile form of editing opposed to the fixed form of editing a codex.

Acknowledging the fluidity of texts instead of insisting upon single-minded, singularly-oriented texts, “learning the meaning of the revision of texts”, as well as the revision of our editorial practices, creates an environment in which a “new kind of critical thinking based on difference, variation, approximation, intention, power, and change” can flourish and work for the common good (Smith).

In class we have talked briefly about different types of editing, such as author’s deliberate editing or “deformance”. The notion of deliberately obscuring meaning rather than clarifying meaning through the process of editing fits into this idea of fluidity and spatiality. The author introduces multiple interpretations, layers and meanings rather than attempting to achieve a singular meaning. James Joyce was mentioned as an example in class with the footnotes that actually give the reader more avenues of interpretation than a solid understanding as most footnotes in a Shakespeare play provides. In relation to electronic editing, however, this obscuring and layering of meaning cannot be achieved in the digital world since ambiguity is flattened. The need to make a choice rather than existing in a fluid, obscure and interpretative space makes it difficult to apply this type of editing electronically. What are the solutions? Are there currently solutions or is it something that needs to be created? Clearly there are a number of “bugs” that need to be worked out in the realm of electronic scholarly editing before we can overcome these problems.