Bernard emphasizes standardized markup techniques as the logical progression of the study of humanities, falling in line with the practices that have always been at its core. Gailey examines both what is lost and gained through digitization, and the sorts of decisions we have to make during the process of digitizing in order to account for these new kinds of interactions. On one hand, it is a more straightforward process to “search” texts. On the other hand, because we are often no longer doing the act of searching, indirectly related items or aspects of an object that are difficult to classify can slip through the cracks. I thought it was interesting to consider the purpose of certain digitized objects and what sort of details are included in order to accommodate its purpose. In both pieces, there is an interest in the editing/interpretive practice embedded in the very practice of encoding texts. In certain circumstances interpretive practices are more obvious (Gailey’s point about Abraham Lincoln and “O Captain!”), whereas others are so conventional or accepted that their interpretive elements seem less obvious (“what constitutes a poem, a stanza, or even a word?”) (Gailey 132). These will also be important details to keep in mind as we make our own editorial choices, whether they seem big or small.
Leave a Reply