My (detailed) experience as a novice encoder. I had no prior experience with programming before this project.

Getting Started  

I wouldn’t have been able to start without the Digital Humanities boot camp or the first group meeting, where I was able to set up Oxygen, my account on github.com and download and install the Github client for Mac. In spite of that, when I was working on my own, I experienced technology anxiety, which I describe as unease caused by the various new programs required and fear that all of those elements would not become coherent. There was a slight error when my Github client was downloaded, the sg-data files downloaded to my documents folder which caused a moment of panic when I couldn’t find them. I soon realized that because this sense of unease was simply a part of the project. As I worked, the project did become coherent, but there were issues along the way. The majority of the work was learning the encoding language, which was precisely like learning a new language. When I was unsure of how to encode an element, because I am a novice, the SGA Encoding Guidelines didn’t always answer my questions—the answers were certainly there, but the explanations did not always make sense to me. Our team’s extensive Google document answered many of my questions and I was thankful that this was a collaborative project.

Markup Process

When doing the markup, I would start by looking at the manuscript image to get a feel for the elements of the page. Some pages were fairly “clean,” meaning there was not a lot to include in the markup besides transcribing the words on the page. The bulk of the encoding, for our purposes, focused on cross outs. I also liked to start by looking at the manuscript to keep the spirit of the project—the manuscript itself—as the focal point. I did utilize the Frankenstein Word Files (transcriptions of the text of the manuscript) and these files were invaluable. Deciphering Mary Shelley’s handwriting would have at least doubled, if not tripled the amount of time the project would take and I’m not sure that I always would have be able to make logical sense out of the words in the manuscript images. That being said, I would still check the transcription page against the manuscript image. I think the most challenging aspect of the markup was learning the necessary tags, especially as the tags continued to evolve. The tags became easier as the encoding progressed because they became more familiar. While encoding, there were also questions of specificity—encoding is meant to capture what is on the manuscript page but how detailed that can and should the markup be? When a cross out appeared, the encoding was marked by: rend=”overstrike” but that is not a particularly descriptive tag. There were variations in the cross-outs that the tag did not describe for example, one that used three diagonal lines, or one with two horizontal lines. I had a few pages with a fair amount of marginal text and I initially struggled with how I would properly encode an instance such as: the marginalia was aligned with lines 3, 4, 5, for example, it might actually all be part of line 2. That turned out to be too specific for our purposes, but it still seems like an important thing to note. I also wondered how important it is to describe the non-text elements of the page such as inkblots, when the handwriting was clearer or less clear (not illegible—there were instances when it seemed neat or messier), when the quill had fresh ink or, how best to describe those doodles, and et cetera. Many of these concerns seem subjective, the doodles especially so, my way of seeing a doodle may be very different from the way another person would view it. It does not seem accurate to leave these elements out, but it seems their level of importance depends on what the goal of the encoding is. I also noticed that I had to resist the temptation to act as an editor by fixing spelling or grammatical errors. It seemed odd to transcribe misspelled words, but I had to accept that my role was not that of an editor.

 Some frustrating aspects of the project:

For all the initial difficulty of learning the markup language, the encoding seemed stress-free when compared with the frustrating technological issues The schema did change as the project went along, but that was more something I had to be careful to pay attention to than actually frustrating. One of the first issues was when the document(s) wouldn’t validate in Oxygen, which was required in order to push them to GitHub. I didn’t know the language of Oxygen well enough to know what caused the problem, which made it difficult for me to fix on my own. Fortunately, I could consult my group and found that sometimes, a < need to be moved to a different line. I think an encoder would need more experience with Oxygen in order to troubleshoot effectively. Other than the validation issue, Oxygen was relatively straightforward. My main frustrations were with the Github client for Mac—there was an issue where the client would not allow me to push the files I worked on, instead it wanted me to push every file in the sg-data folder. I know that other people experienced this issue and I do not know the exact cause, only that the experienced encoders at MITH thankfully fixed it. This seemed like a culmination of my technology anxiety—it seemed as if my encoding might be altered permanently or lost all together. My fears were not realized, and might be easily alleviated if the issues with the Github client could be eliminated.

The “emotional side”

The most rewarding aspect of the project was working closely with the manuscript images. I know the images were digital copies, but that did not prevent the experience from being thrilling. In fact, when I first looked at my ten pages, I felt a shiver of disbelief and awe—I was looking at the actual manuscript of Frankenstein!  I did not think it were possible for anyone but scholars of the manuscript to have access to it. In addition to the thrill, I also felt closer to the text. What I mean is, I think there is often a distance between the author and the readers, especially when the author lived in a previous century, and this can turn authors into figures of isolated and independent genius. It is sometimes hard to appreciate that their writing reflects the real struggles of their times if the authors themselves do not seem as if they had been real people. I admit to feeling this way about Mary Shelley and seeing the spelling, grammatical errors, as well as the various cross-outs and changes in the manuscript made her seem more human. This also allowed me to feel closer to the manuscript—I could appreciate that it had been a fluid piece of art in progress, rather than the permanent finished project it appears to be when reading the novel. Though Frankenstein is likely not in any danger of being forgotten, digital encoding could be wonderful way to bring attention and appreciation to neglected texts.

Questions and thoughts for the future:

I wondered if it matters how much familiarity an encoder has with the text? I found that having familiarity with the novel made the process easier because I never felt lost in the text. I think encoding a text I had never read before, especially if it were an isolated 10 pages like in this project, would have been extremely difficult. I came to the conclusion that familiarity with the text is necessary if not completely crucial. If this is accurate, then it seems ideal that students of literature also be trained in encoding.

Thoughts on how to develop the tags further

My sense is that there should be one standardized markup that is perhaps closest to resembling the physical page of the manuscript in that it captures all of its elements. I wonder if there is a way to make a standardized mark-up—can any two (or more) encoders ever completely agree on what precisely needs to be included? I think it is possible to reach an agreement (through on on-going process) and from there, individual researchers could do their own encoding work and create tags for monstrosity, for education, for women’s issues, for anything a researcher would look for in Frankenstein. This might create many versions of encoding the novel, but the versions could be used as a tool for analysis.

My suggestions for change

Our group was fairly large and while the discussions via the GoogleDoc were invaluable, I think more face-to-face interaction and/or smaller groups, along with some in-person encoding might prevent going astray in the encoding and alleviate of the frustrations with the software. When we worked in our quality control checking groups (I worked with two other group members) it seemed like an ideal dynamic, we could easily check each other’s files, meet in person, and carry-on an email correspondence. As for the technology anxiety, I’m not sure that anything can be done about that besides gaining experience and perhaps a software change (likely beyond our control) to the Github client for Mac.

Before this project if I had any thoughts about how digital archiving was done, I would said it was just a matter of storing the manuscripts digitally. While it is important to preserve manuscripts digitally as well as to allow a larger audience access to them, this would not require a specialized language. I see the special language of textual encoding as a way to engage a text, to describe and analyze it while preserving it. This adds a richness and depth to literary study and analysis while also keeping literature current. I understand that there are powerful digital ways to study literature that I was admittedly ignorant of before this class.

Are Women Real?

In this post, I attempt to tie together many of the works we have discussed so far.

It wasn’t until I studied Frankenstein for the third time (with this class) that the issue of women and their status in society came to the forefront. I’m a little surprised I didn’t realize what was happening with the women in the novel before, but now that I have, I often find myself mulling the issue over, especially as it continues to resurface in many of our subsequent readings. One of the threads that connect the majority of works for me is how the status of women in society affects their “realness.” I find myself questioning the realness of the female characters in Frankenstein and it seems that Nathanael does the same in The Sandman. I thought this might an issue characteristic of the 19^th centuries that could be solved by the passing of time, but the more contemporary works, Blade Runner and Patchwork Girl offer solutions that are ultimately not satisfying.

I don’t think any character in the novel questions whether or not Caroline Frankenstein, Elizabeth Lavenza, and Justine Moritz are real (as in human), but their lack of defining characteristics and their seemingly implicit death wishes do give them an unreal quality. In the novel, women are given as gifts that ultimately die untimely deaths. Caroline Frankenstein is the daughter of Mr. Beaufort, Alphonse Frankenstein’s close friend, and when Beaufort dies, his daughter is given to Alphonse. That’s a rather unsettling exchange. It’s not stated, but I imagine she was a teenager when her father died, and because her mother is not mentioned, I assume she’s also dead, so the only place for the orphaned Caroline is with her father’s best friend? I realize that marriages where there is a sizable age gap between the husband and wife were certainly more common in the late 18^th century than present day, but that uncomfortable thought aside, Caroline had no choice in what her future would be. Elizabeth Lavenza is also given as a gift. She is the child of Alphonse’s sister and an Italian man. When her mother dies, her father remarries and gives his infant daughter to her uncle, and that is the last we hear of Mr. Lavenza. Elizabeth from her arrival in the Frankenstein family is promised to their son Victor. These two women seem simply to be items that are exchanged at the whim of men.

We don’t get any indication that Caroline is displeased by her fate from Victor’s description of her as a perfect domestic angel (so perfect that this interferes with Victor’s idea of women). However, I want to suggest that one of the reasons Caroline cared for Elizabeth when she was sick with scarlet fever is she didn’t actually care if she too caught the disease and died. Victor portrays this as another example of Caroline’s selflessness, but I think her weariness with her life can be detected in what she says. On her deathbed, Caroline gives her position to Elizabeth, “Elizabeth, my love, you must supply my place to your younger cousins” (26). Supply is an interesting word choice, it brings to mind the idea of production; Caroline is a producer of domesticity and can easily be replaced by a new producer, Elizabeth. Victor remarks on his cousin’s new role:

“Since the death of her aunt, her mind had acquired new firmness and vigour. She determined to fulfill her duties with the greatest exactness; and she felt that that most imperious duty, of rendering her uncle and cousins happy, had devolved upon her” (27) So Elizabeth’s reason for being is to make one man and three boys (Alphonse, Victor, Ernest, and William) happy.

The third unreal female character, Justine Moritz, does not begin her life or a marriage as a gift, but she is made to give the gift of her life. Because Justine seems completely resigned to die for a crime she didn’t commit, perhaps she too has realized that in the world in which she lives, her value is only in how she can serve men. Elizabeth is uncomplaining about her role of subservient caretaker and her death was the most sudden, so we don’t get her opinion on it, but maybe it was not only Victor who harbored a secret death wish for her? I do not believe she wished to die in the way she did, but I do not think it is too far a stretch to suggest that women welcome leaving the oppressive patriarchal society in which they live. Death does seem to be the only escape from a society where women are simply gifts, essentially domestic servants, no matter their station, and in every way, supplemental to men. Mary Shelley’s critique of patriarchal society is so strong and harsh, that I may yet be understating it.

The Sandman is a variation on the issue of realness. The main issue may be about Nathanael’s fear of his losing his eyes, the trauma this causes, and ultimately, whether Nathaneal is even a real human or not, but the issues concerning women are remarkably similar to those in Frankenstein. Whether or not Nathanael is real (I don’t think he is, but that’s another post entirely,) he is a proper patriarchal male in that he has a lot of trouble differentiating between the real and unreal women in the story: Clara, is a strong female, intelligent, sensible, and practical and Olympia who is nearly nonverbal, awkward, frequently referred to as stupid by her “father.” Nathanael, annoyed that Clara challenges his wild ideas, accuses Clara of being an automaton. That is quite an accusation to render on a person! A woman challenges a man must not be a human woman. I wonder how Victor would have responded if Elizabeth dared to challenge him? (She didn’t challenge him and he still did nothing to prevent her death, so imagine if she had been more aggressive!) Nathanael prefers to spend his time chattering away to Olympia, and he probably never would have realized she was an automaton had he not come upon Spalanzani and Coppola fighting over her lifeless (and eyeless) body. Nathanael’s preference for the subservient female who appears to be absorbed by all his ridiculous babbling makes complete sense in a patriarchal society. He thinks he has the issue sorted out, Clara is real and Olympia is not, but he once more becomes confused, tries to kill Clara, whom he is again convinced is an automaton, but he ends up killing himself. Perhaps this is a statement on how dangerous it is to buy into a society where woman are supplemental to men. There are other issues the lead to his death, but had Nathanael never been taken in by the false allure of Olympia, he may have resisted the Sandman.

The more modern works offer solutions to the issue of real/unreal women:

Blade Runner presents us with an alternate reality that curiously features no human women. This may be a solution: in an unchanging patriarchal society, women may need to take a different form to change society. Unfortunately, this futuristic reality is no different from the reality of Frankenstein or The Sandman. The two leading female characters, Rachael and Pris, are both replicants, and as such, must be “retired” to preserve humanity’s safety. Pris presents us with a different kind of female character, one who is aggressively sexual and acts to actively subvert the patriarchal society. Of course, she is not acting alone, but with (or, really it seems, under) Roy, and for me, that lessened her impact as a new kind of woman. It seemed as though she would likely follow any command that Roy gave her.  Her aggressive sexuality does make her more dangerous and it is no shock that she is killed. Rachael, the one replicant who survives is naturally the most submissive, which in turn, makes her the most human. I found her character to be drawn much like the women in Frankenstein, beautiful, subservient, and uncomplaining. Rachael does seem sassy when she’s first introduced, but by the time Deckard has claimed her, that characteristic is all but gone. So, nothing has really changed from Frankenstein to Blade Runner:

In Patchwork Girl, the title character, who I find to be the most compelling female we’ve encountered thus far, is not truly a woman. The Patchwork Girl is a radical departure from the norms of patriarchic society, a girl made of man, woman, and animal sewn together. Perhaps she can change or at least break free from patriarchic society. The Patchwork Girl is charming, seductive, and the first female character that is truly independent, but she still isn’t fully a member of society because society has not changed. I think the Patchwork Girl is meant to be an example of a woman who breaks free from society be living outside of it, but as we see especially in her longing for Mary, this is often a lonely life. Despite that setback, the Patchwork Girl is the most fully realized of the female characters because she acknowledges her position and is able to surpass it. She is not able to change society but she is able to live independently, travel, escape the fate of being subservient to a man, and most important of all, she experiences the true friendship and true love with both Mary and Elsie, and these relationships are only possible between equals. (It may be argued that Alphonse and Caroline Frankenstein attained true love, but because Caroline is not his equal, I do not think the argument holds.) The Patchwork Girl accomplishes much, but for her to fully succeed, she would need to be accepted by society, and perhaps change it from within.

I’ve learned that being human is not enough to make women real in patriarchic society, and a woman has to be more than a gift, domestic servant, sexually aggressive threat, and so on, to be real.