I think this is the last old post I had to write. This is focused on my final project for Prof. Witmore’s class in May:
Over the course of a semester, Professor Witmore introduced our class to writings about relational patterns and networks, then subsequently applied them to the study of literature. We read books such as Graham Harman’s “Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics”, Franco Moretti’s “Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History”, and Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein’s “A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction” which slowly coalesced in my mind and led into my final project; a Java program designed to help render Docuscope quality text from a plain or formatted transcription.
I am sorry for the delay in posting for so long this summer however all of the delay can be attributed to my newest project, Shakesbook. Shakesbook is a website that I designed which focuses on social relationships in Early Modern England, particularly on relationships to do with the London theatres and playwrights. (It is available at http://www.shakesbook.org/ ) Continue reading
As the question of discriminatory influence in results lingers, I would like to redirect thoughts to what Michael Witmore wrote in one of his recent posts. In it, he speaks about a text as being “massively addressable at different levels of scale”, such as through genre, lines, or single words or even through different modes such as a phone book dress or text tagging. I am mainly reminded of his article because the texts that I have been looking at are addressable at mainly levels of scale but the results garnered from these texts are also, themselves, massively addressable. As I noted in the last post there are an infinite variety of notes that I could make on any one of the diagrams that I can make. Continue reading
To finish this trio of posts, I would like to provide a response to Mike Witmore’s post at Wine Dark Sea labeled Shakespeare Out of Place?. In this post Witmore notes that “when we did a further study of the clusters containing works by Shakespeare, we noticed that their elevated levels of two different LATs that dealt with punctuation – TimeDate and LanguageReference – was an artifact of hand modernization.” These two Language Attribute Types (LATs) lie within the Docuscope’s Dimensions of Narrative Time and Reference Language and Docuscope’s Clusters of Narrative and Special Referencing respectively. Witmore notes the difference between the clustering of Shakespeare’s plays among their contemporaries before and after the emendation of these LATs. I must presume that Witmore also chose to use Ward’s Test at the LAT level of Docuscope’s output in JMP to create his diagrams, since he doesn’t mention adjusting any of the Dimensions or Clusters so therefore wouldn’t have changed diagrams. I created similar diagrams to reflect on the diagrams I created when first starting out, for my post Epic. For that post, I made a diagram looking solely at Shakespeare’s corpus in the First Folio. I then recreated the experiment a second time, but left out the two LATs mentioned by Witmore above. Both portraits are side by side for comparison below. Continue reading
This post contains three smaller entries, each with their own direction of focus, hence the title. First, I would like to respond to Prof. Witmore’s comments on my previous post. Secondly, I would like to make a note about a program created for us by a graduate student at UW, Michael Correll. Finally, I would like to close with an analyzed response to a post at WineDarkSea labeled Shakespeare Out of Place?
After finishing my last post, To Be or Not To Be a Romance, I discussed both my findings and my methods with Michael Witmore. In doing so, I ended up realizing more than I had previously about the final image in the post. Continue reading
Whilst going over older materials I have stored, I came across an article by Witmore and Hope dealing with the Romances or Late Plays of Shakespeare. It was a journal in Early Modern Tragicomedy (2007), the twenty-second installment of the “Studies in Renaissance Literature” series. In it, Witmore and Hope write that John Fletcher’s “definition of genre not only specifies what must be in a play to qualify it for membership in a genre, but also what it must lack”. Fletcher’s postulation of what must be present, but also not present, to belong to a genre is similar to what I tested in my last post by adding and removing the characters that plays were named after. In review, it was a mixed bag of results leading towards both the idiolects of the play’s main characters and the texture of plays themselves as the primary reasons for clustering. However Witmore and Hope’s article sparked a new thought process in my head. Since readers and critics as far back in time as Fletcher have noted the peculiar differences between the Romances and the rest of Shakespeare’s corpus, does that mean by following Fletcher’s formula that adding or subtracting characters will affect a play’s genre classification? One of Witmore’s earliest views from Docuscope was a simplified dendrogram noting a genre specific clustering result from an unbiased word tagging program. I have since noticed particular genre related movement in the Romeo and Juliet post, but I am now trying to combine a three hundred year-old literary critic’s mind with a modern machine’s processes. In sum, I wish to determine if the idiolects of the main characters assist the Romances in clustering differently from the rest of Shakespeare’s corpus and whether or not the isolation of these particular characters’ lines from the whole play reacts with the genre specific clustering already present. Continue reading