–I found myself particularly intrigued by Gailey’s distinctions between close and distant reading, observations regarding these experiences by taggers versus users, and proposals for bridging these gaps. One of the prime concerns in digital editing seems, to me, to be the balance between providing access while also (and still) encouraging engagement.

–The digital experience (and all the shortcuts it provides) seems to inherently encourage distant reading; Gailey references the size of such resources leading to this mode of engagement, but I would add that the sum experience of digital/screen-based work leads to this as well. When a student turns to a screen they enter a different mindset than if they turn to a material book (/object), and this mindset seems to be one of shortcuts.

— When the mind if already looking for shortcuts, editorial principles must be even more carefully attended. When thinking about paper editions, I always worry that providing too complex an apparatus, too many glosses (or, here, too many tags) precludes rather than encourages creative, close reading (though I am specifically thinking of student or first-time readers of a text). So, how do we provide information without feeding into the “shortcut mindset”; where is the sweet spot of encouraging further thinking rather than providing the easy-out?

–In this vein, I appreciate Gailey’s concern with “taking advantage of an important nuance in TEI” by opting for orig/reg tags, and her proposal that such projects can integrate “guiding” materials (rather than “offering up” either pre-made interpretations or overwhelming collections). I anticipate that locating this balance (between too much and too little supplementary information) will be something we wrestle with during the project.

(–Also, I look forward to meeting you all in a couple short days!)