Social reading makes reading a team sport!

Just a tool of efficiency or for noticing unrecognized patterns through a different means of analysis. Both, IMO.

"Araby" is filled with religious allusions; religion was important in Ireland. This passage could be interpreted in a number of ways. In one sense, the boys being set "free" could mean that they are finally able to enjoy being kids. They are literally released from the rigid structure of school, and now they can do what boys do: play. Furthermore, Khorand observes that it is possible that the school "constrains and limits [the boys] so much more with it's didactic religious teachings".

source: http://epiphany.ius.edu.ba/index.php/epiphany/article/view/109/106

A street "being blind" means that it is a dead end. North Richmond Street also happens to be a dead end where one is not able to see around the corner (see picture in the annotation for "North Richmond Street"). Furthermore, Joyce's use of the word "blind" has been a topic of discussion among literary scholars. In an essay about symbolism in "Araby", Golbarg Khorand notes that "This blind street (repeated twice in the same paragraph) could be a symbol of the boy’s character that is literally blind due to his young age and immaturity". The blindness could also be connected to all of the people living on the street, or all Dubliners. Perhaps Joyce was even thinking about all the people who never venture out from the little corner of planet earth where they were born.

source: http://epiphany.ius.edu.ba/index.php/epiphany/article/view/109/106

Marshall Nunn states that "For Ruben, [Roosevelt] is the representative man of the United States...[and the poem details] The imperialistic attitude that Roosevelt took regarding the building of the Panama Canal" Here, Roosevelt is not only literally the leader of the United States, but also represents the same ideals the United States was founded on. Throughout the poem Dario no longer addresses Roosevelt, but rather addresses the United States as a whole. With the assumption that Roosevelt represents the greater collective beliefs of the United States.

Another great contrast in the poem occurs when Dario alludes to Tolstoy. A Russian writer in many ways represents a great contrast to Roosevelt himself. Acereda suggests that in fact Tolstoy represents the a vastly different moral view than Roosevelt. Acereda suggests that in fact Tolstoy is an image for opposition against Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy. Where Tolstoy was working to liberate and educate his people Roosevelt was living an alternate justice system.

Several people have determined that this poem suggests that Dario is harshly judging the United States for their involvement in imperialism and slavery throughout the world. Hal L. Ballew argues that "the torch held by our country's most famous landmark directs its light into the far corners of the world in order to search out the innocent and helpless so that they may be conquered and enslaved"

According to Marshall Nunn Dario "far from admiring of his [Whitman] democratic ideals," With Dunn's information the inference then becomes that Dario believes the only way that the American people will understand his message through Walt Whitman's poetry. However, given the knowledge that Dario does not respect Whitman this line can be seen as an insult to the American people. Or in contrast, as Acereda states Dario can be speaking on the American people's terms, Whitman being a classic American poet, in a desperate attempt to communicate a message to them. )

Howard Rheingold is a psychologist/neurologist incredibly invested in the effect today's digital net world has had on society. He has written a large amount of article, launched a magazine, and delivered a TEDtalk on his findings. His about website is http://rheingold.com/about/

People might start feeling so smart and "all knowing" that they will shut out anything they personally don't intellectually identify with. The main problem in today's society is that others don't think they should know anything else about other people's experiences and ideas and they'll label these types of informations as unnecessary. Basically, they will make up their mind that they are right anyway so they shut out anything that will probably enhance their culturization and most likely change their minds on a certain topics. It's easy enough for people to surround themselves in a community that will agree with their views and thus they will no longer mentally grow because they only expose themselves to their own side. this is the type of distraction that Wolf claims hinders "intellectual potential".

This hits the nail on the head in reference to one of my previous annotations on the fact that the only reason Russia felt bold enough to invest time to create fake American profiles was because they felt the American people were gullible enough to fall for their propaganda. It is up to the people to educate themselves into not falling for this series of media directed attention.

It's interesting for me personally to read about how the brain basically rewired itself when we started developing our own system of reading and writing. Neurons connected themselves in different ways to accommodate our new method of communication. Most likely, our hippocampus enlarged to support this new feed of info. It makes me wonder how exactly the mechanisms in our brain changed to make space for this enhancement, like did we lose some sort of heightened senses such as sight and hearing to make room for our reading abilities? Are our brains changing once again since the advancement of the internet? For example, will we become near sighted to increase our short attention span since we spend such a long time reading information and needing to pay attention more today than ever before?

It is vital that from now on people grow a sensitive sense of detection of false information. In this day and age it is easy to become engrossed in the multitude of data being spread. People need to reverse look up anything they are not sure of, and have a general idea of which sources can be trusted and which cannot. Otherwise, it is easy to fall victim and be guilty of spreading misinformation. Ultimately, it was this lack of skepticism that enabled Russia to spread its agenda undetected throughout facebook.They stole a Brazilian man's pictures and made up false addresses and education in order to do this, when a simple search of this fake profile would have been easily exposed.

The key to understanding the world around us is face to face communication that is "mindful" and "mediated". Personally, I believe that people lose their sense of empathy online because they don't have a physical face in front of them talking about their experiences. Usually, all you truly see online are either data or opinions, and it becomes incredibly easy to side with one issue because one absorbs information with no consideration on how different types of people are involved. According to the article "is the internet killing empathy?" it is stated that

Their brains have become "wired" to use their tech gadgets effectively in order to multi-task -- staying connected with friends, texting and searching online endlessly, often exposing their brains to shocking and sensational images and videos. Many people are desensitizing their neural circuits to the horrors they see, while not getting much, if any, off-line training in empathic skills. And the effects may even reach young people.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/18/small.vorgan.internet.empathy/index.html

The effects of widespread media and propaganda most likely will make it easier for the consumers to become self centered and desensitized to others and thus fall for the Russian social media plants which caters to these types of mentalities.

Although Google is made out to be a great search engine for whatever people want to look up when they need to be distracted, Google still doesn't use a database containing everything that's on the internet. in "Mystery of Russian Fake on Facebook Solved, by a Brazilian", it is mentioned that

Before publishing the photos, The Times tried to find their source using Google’s image search function, but nothing turned up. This suggested that they might belong to a Brazilian Facebook user because Facebook blocks image searches of its profiles. The company declined to say whether it had searched internally and found the photos before Mr. Costacurta came forward.

This shows that even when our attention could be completely focused on finding as much information as we can for one subject, in the end our dedicated attention may have been in vain overall.

Because almost the entirety of the country already had predetermined that the most relevant issue in 2016 was the presidential election, it became all the more easier for Russia to create fake profiles in the heightened scrutiny that both of the candidates were under, and repeatedly post about politics and their "opinions", and influence people who's goals were to figure out who to vote for.

This is quite possibly the main reason the Russian government was creating fake profiles in the first place. They wanted to spread propaganda about Hillary Clinton and her emails in order to sway the public vote to Trump. It has already been proven that Russia had a hand in hacking the 2016 elections, but it appears that they wanted to go a step further with this propaganda. Because they had a lot of plants in the social media community highlighting the problems with Hillary, due to mirror neurons, it most likely caused the people who saw these posts to attribute a "regular American person" to thinking that Hillary was bad, thus swaying their thinking to gear more toward Trump.

Attention to detail, one of the vital necessities of media navigation, was needed for the people who were being exposed to things such as fake profiles, like that Russian propagandist that was posing as a regular man on facebook that spread certain types of information for whoever followed him to see. If they were not paying close enough attention to whoever was behind the propaganda being exposing them to these ideas, then they will fall victims to the pushed ideas.

The supplemental reading I chose was the article "Mystery of Russian Fake Facebook Solved, by a Brazilian" This article examined the fake profile the Russian government made during the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.The reason for this was to perpetuate the email scandals that Hillary was involved in to sway public opinion toward Trump. one specific fake profile, Melvin Redick, had pictures stolen from a Brazilian man from 2014 that was only identified when the pictures were made public in an effort to find out who the man really was. It was also discovered that the addresses, jobs and schools claimed to have been attended never had heard of the person in the profile, raising quite a few red flags to the investigators. In all, when the true man of the photographs was contacted, he was unnerved at the fact that his pictures had been taken from him due to the fact that he had had his facebook profile on private, not to mention that when reverse looking up his pictures on Google, it leads to zero results because Google blocks Brazilian Facebooks. It just goes to show that no matter what type of privacy precaution one can take, hackers are still able to take pictures without permission and use them to their own gain. This also personally makes me realize how undeniably corrupt governments can be in order to influence elections not even in their own country.

There are two main issues that need to be addressed when talking about this Russian, and by extant all, propaganda endeavors: internet privacy and gullibility. Everything can and will be seen on the internet, no matter how many precautions one will take, that's why it's important to limit the amount of media you post publicly. Governments will have access to your information and could use it to push their own agendas.Tying more closely with the main text, Net Smart by Howard Rheingold, is the gullibility issue. It's brought up that paying attention in the age of the internet has become incredibly difficult for today's society. Because people aren't paying attention to the world around them, and to an extent the world on their phones, they are missing the crucial details in life. People are letting this excess flow of information take over their lives and influence their opinions and ideas. This is the main reason why Russian propagandists posed as regular American people in the first place; they knew the Americans scrolling through the posts of this fake profile will inadvertently subconsciously take into account the posts that the fake profile feeds to them. One needs to become aware of what they are reading online, why is was posted, and by who. By researching, becoming skeptical of online presences, and overall being aware of their thoughts while reading texts online, one will be more prepared to deflect propaganda planted into their social media feed.

Like CCSS. Close reading being the common thread.

Oh, what an important distinction!

Ok, here I'm getting a bit more worried. It's not that I don't think this is helpful. But I do think it's skipping some possible better, more human solutions.

One concern: the premise here is that comprehension struggles are mostly questions requiring answers rather than discursive situations requiring more interaction. A second related concern: is the ultimate goal of "learning" to get the answer or to acquire facility with that discursive process? (Answer: the latter.)

I think simple social annotation, perhaps backed by some AI, could go a long way here. Allow students to ask questions, answer each others questions, and surface those questions and answers in a useful way to teachers...

Etexts have an advantage in the annotation department in that they're not limited to the marginal space. Annotations can be as lengthy as they need to be. They can also be organized through tags, and thus easily searched. They can contain hyperlinks and be hyperlinked, tying texts together. I wonder how many people are taught, in any meaningful or systematic way, to use digital texts. And if they were, how would that change this dilemma.

The significance of basic materials created within a certain cultural structure is vital to the advancement of the traditions and ideals of the cultures. In both "Mohegan Wood-Splint Basket" and "Mark Their Words: Medieval Bookmarks" two incredibly overlooked yet culturally significant material usage objects are observed. It's the simplest of items, the ones that are rooted in the daily routine of the people, that have the most stories to tell.

The woven baskets (and other materialistic cultural items such as bookmarks) should not be considered and analyzed as texts according to the Mohegan Wood-splint Basket chapter, and therefore not be treated as such. In general, doing so would result in missing some of the most critical components of the reason they exist or what they truly symbolize. There is no true author, there is no audience, and there are no literary devices to analyze.

Rather than analyzing the literal contexts of the materials, one has to make meaning of each three dimensional detail and why it is there. For example, in the case of the Mohegan basket, the lining contains scraps of newspaper from 1817, which gives an accurate time period of when it was made. The same can be said about the found item type of bookmark during Medieval times. For example, a leaf used as a bookmark can tell you that the person had been reading outside, and you can even go as far as to find out what type of tree the leaf was from, and draw conclusions based upon that.

There may exist some opinions that stake the claim that typical items that were used in the general lives of individuals are not as important as written primary source documents. Although it is true that written documents are more likely to contain confirmed specific details, they sadly cannot provide a true visual perception of the writer's life. Materials are far more tangible and physical to provide a deeper look and the historical aspects of a culture that cannot be represented on text.

Culture analysis does not have to solely focus on written media. Looking past the surface of materialistic culture is also as vital to the development of ideas of how a certain community lived in the past.

importan skill when reading a foreign text!

Literacy, in general, is not simply knowing how to read read text. It also extends to know what to do what the information you acquire from reading. Reading also encompasses underatanding. For example, underatanding traffic lights and signs are a type of literacy that not involve text, but they communicate meaning that you need to know how to read and synthesize into action.

When I think of reading comprehension, I think of a person being able to read a text. While reading a text, they are processing, analyizing, and inferencing the text. Finally, they are able to discuss the text and answer questions. Then, I see this definition of and realize that there are some other important pieces that I'm missing.

Add a note.

Yes, of course. But it's ironic that this three post tirade begins with a rather distant reading of the MLA program.

In the above performance of close reading, is the evidence more "inescapable"? Isn't is always in the fullness of the argumentation no matter where the data comes from?

Link to Lewis et al (2006) Lesson Study, Afflerbach et al (2008) modeling and explaining, Fagella and Deshler, (2007) reading strategies

S3Object is a pointer to the data object.

Provides an InputStream to read the data.

"Novelist Mary Rakow in conversation with the Rev. Liz Tichenor"

This section of Lu Chi's text explains that only after we accept the tranquil inner depth of the mind, will the hard work of searching for inspiration payoff and wild creativity finally emerge to the surface. We see this in his use of words such as “Blithe,” “calmly,” “secret,” “lost,” “subterranean,” “arduously,” “hidden,” “out,” “bottom,” “emerge,” and “hook.” Going from a place of being carefree (blithe) and reaching below the minds surface (Subterranean) will the writer come out the other side (emerge) victories (angler’s hook). He uses the juxtapose of “celestial” and "Subterranean" as a metaphor of going from a "celestial" place of security above and being conscious, to “subterranean” as going to that unknown place below, the subconscious to find oneself. Also he uses “water” as referencing to the limited and small mind, “Current” as the mind breaking free and drifting, to the “Ocean” to become a massive and unlimited force of creative energy. Lu Chi also uses the transformation of the writer as the “diver,” who enters this unknown water and becomes the “fish” searching and finally metamorphosis into the “angler” who has found what he is looking for and pulls inspiration and creativity with "hook."

In this section of Lu Chi’s text, he is describing the most important task and responsibility of a writer is to teach future generations present and not yet born the importance of proper writing. We see this with his use of words such as “Let,” “full-blown,” “morning,” “ancients,” “own,” “stand,” “life,” “late,” “yet,” “bud” and “endeavor.” Lu Chi uses the metaphors of a garden and its plants to illustrate this with “full-grown garden” who are a group of mature writers in all their “glory,” who give clarity on how to write with the word “morning” and are beacons with the word “stand,” for present and future writers that will come after they are gone and he demonstrates this with the use of “late blossoms” and “yet to bud.” The words “full,” “late” and “yet” is the juxtapose of past, present and future. Lu Chi use of garden also exemplifies how proper writing are order, beauty and neat, because he doesn’t use words like jungle or forest, which grow wild. Also “Ancient” means that history will prove which writers will stand the test of time to teach others in the future.

Her description of the writing process reminds of Douglass' recounting of when he first learned to read. Reading was painful for him at first, because he realized the extent of his oppression, but it becomes a tool for liberation.

This stood out to me, because although sense and sensibility are the prevailing themes in this book, I believe that Austen also had a lot to say about gossip, and its harmful effect within society. Here, we see the worst gossiper relish in her acquired information, though she was in no position to do so, and she decides to share this piece which is not hers to share.

I believe this shows remarkable character development. Elinor is no longer suppressing her true feelings, and is confessing them to her sister. She is gaining more sensibility while still holding onto her sense.

Cyanotype prints on handmade gampi paper

It seems like there is a disconnect.

Fascinating distinction!

1. Robert Putnam - Bowling Alone, mentioned at 17:29

1A. Talks about the loss of community over time.

Distractions as a researched problem, but where is the citation?

Eliot reading his poem.

Page 8

Jockers talking about the old approach in the 1990s to anecdotal evidence:

… in the 1990s, gathering literary evidence meant reading books, noting "things" (a phallic symbol here, a bibliographical reference there, a stylistic flourish, an allusion, and so on) and then interpreting: making sense and arguments out of those observations. Today, in the age of digital libraries and large-scale book-digitization projects, the nature of the "evidence" available to us has changed, radically. Which is not to say that we should no longer read books looking for, or noting, random "things," but rather to emphasize that massive digital corpora offer is unprecedented access to literally record an invite, even demand, a new type of evidence gathering and meaning making. The literary scholar of the 21st-century can no longer be content with anecdotal evidence, with random "things" gathered from a few, even "representative," text. We must strive to understand the things we find interesting in the context of everything else, including a massive possibly "uninteresting" text.

Pages 7 and 8

Jockers is talking here about Ian Watt’s method in Rise of the Novel

What are we to do with the other three to five thousand works of fiction published in the eighteenth century? What of the works that Watt did not observe and account for with his methodology, and how are we to now account for works not penned by Defoe, by Richardson, or by Fielding? Might other novelists tell a different story? Can we, in good conscience, even believe that Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding are representative writers? Watt’s sampling was not random; it was quite the opposite. But perhaps we only need to believe that these three (male) authors are representative of the trend towards "realism" that flourished in the nineteenth century. Accepting this premise makes Watts magnificent synthesis into no more than a self-fulfilling project, a project in which the books are stacked in advance. No matter what we think of the sample, we must question whether in fact realism really did flourish. Even before that, we really ought to define what it means "to flourish" in the first place. Flourishing certainly seems to be the sort of thing that could, and ought, to be measured. Watt had no yardstick against which to make such a measurement. He had only a few hundred texts that he had read. Today things are different. The larger literary record can no longer be ignored: it is here, and much of it is now accessible.

Jockers, Matthew L. 2013. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. Topics in the Digital Humanities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Compare with the definitions of these terms in original text by Barthes here: PDF of Pleasures. Relevant quote "If I read this sentence, this story, or this word with pleasure, it is because they were written in pleasure (such pleasure does not contradict the writer's complaints). But the opposite? Does writing in pleasure guarantee-guarantee me, the writer-my reader's pleasure? Not at all. I must seek out this reader (must "cruise" him) without knowing where he is, A site of bliss is then created. It is not the reader's "person" that is necessary to me, it is this site: the possibility of a dialectics of desire, of an unpredictabilIty of blIss: the bets are not placed, there can still be a game" (Barthes 4).

Discussion of the methodological difficulties involved in close reading: i.e. there is no such thing as "just reading."

Culler, Jonathan. 2010. “The Closeness of Close Reading.” ADE Bulletin, 20–25. doi:10.1632/ade.149.20.

Discussion of the methodology of close reading: middleton, Peter. Distant Reading: Performance, Readership, and Consumption in Contemporary Poetry. Tuscaloosa: U of alabama P, 2005. Print.

Page 16

One benefit of traditional hermeneutical practices such as close reading is that the trained reader need not install anything, run any software, wrestle with settings, or wait for results. The experienced reader can just enjoy iteratively reading, thinking, and rereading. Similarly the reader of another person's interpretation, if the book being interpreted is at hand, can just pick it up, follow the references, and recapitulate the reading. To be as effective as close reading, analytical methods have to be significantly easier to apply and understand. They have to be like reading, or, better yet, a part of reading. Those invested in the use of digital analytics need to think differently about what is shown and what is hidden: the rhetorical presentation of analytics matters. Further, literary readers of interpretive works want to learn about the interpretation. Much of the literature in journals devoted to humanities computing suffers from being mostly about the computing; it is hard to find scholarship that is addressed to literary scholars and is based in computing practices.

p. 6

Retrieval methods designed for small databases decline rapidly in effectiveness as collections grow...

This is an interesting point that is missed in the Distant reading controversies: its all very well to say that you prefer close reading, but close reading doesn't scale--or rather the methodologies used to decide what to close read were developed when big data didn't exist. How to you combine that when you can read everything. I.e. You close read Dickins because he's what survived the 19th C as being worth reading. But now, if we could recover everything from the 19th C how do you justify methodologically not looking more widely?

Freire

Though it came out a few years after the texts listed in the previous paragraph, Randall Collins’s Credential Society would be relevant.

Jänicke, S., G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann. n.d. “On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities: A Survey and Future Challenges.”

After reading a book, this 11-year-old sees ways to create his own version of an imagined world.

Videos as well as digitised versions of the poets' manuscripts are available at the Irish Poetry Reading Collection on the UCD Digital Library, at https://digital.ucd.ie/view/ucdlib:38488. See also coverage at the UCD Library Blog, https://ucdlib.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/irish-poetry-reading-archive-launches/.

See the Irish Times coverage of the launch of the Irish Poetry Reading Archive: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/poetry-for-posterity-the-irish-poetry-reading-archive-launches-1.2450480

perlegi

Lightweight is its own weighted phrase. It seems to suggest that nothing of meaning or value, beyond something skirting the surface, would be worth writing or reading. But I think it all depends on how one uses the margins of a text. If someone writes a racist post, I can't take it down, necessarily, but I can target the writer and the words with annotations, making my views known and inviting others to do the same. Perhaps then, the weight of the annotation protest might have some value. With annotation, we can target specific words and phrases and sentences, as opposed to comments, where observations are more general in nature. Maybe it is the comment bin that is lightweight.

Maria Konnikova also cites a 2014 study in a New Yorker article on this topic that concludes by offering annotation as a kind of deliberate, slow online reading practice. (Note: the article has been annotated by two sets of college students!)

Very interesting. So an intentional online reading practice--fortified, let's say, by a collaborative annotation tool--might produce different results...

Love this line!

At first glance, Sumner seem to be saying: Let's punish those who are successful and reward those who are not. I think what Sumner really means by "penalties" is the consequences that come with not being successful (e.g. poor living conditions). Similarly, when he discusses giving the "rewards" to the less successful, he means that we should share the benefits of success (e.g. money) with those who may not have had the opportunities to succeed like their counterparts so that they may live better, healthier lives. For example, Carnegie had libraries built for the public so that they could access books for knowledge and entertainment, whereas they may never have had access to readily available, free books before.

in other words, if you are black or mixed-race you have to have permission to gather in a group. Did they have permission to gather in churches? Might this be one way they "legally" gathered and help explain the prominence of black churches in the Civil Rights Movement many years later?

Great questions!

Nothing against this, but it's not the game I'm in.

Question is, though, can the same tool be used to do both distant reading and close reading?

Does the slow reading movement parallel the slow food one? In some ways, there might be a point against “consumption” in both cases. Or, at least, utilitarianism.

Never heard this quote before, but it's great!

One of my favorite quotes!

An irreversible step.

This is a pretty good point - but then why would we not see AI-based civilizations?

Besides the piece’s content, the interactions which happened through a layer of Diigo annotations were quite interesting.

Might want to add yet another layer to this old discussion.

I might use something like it as the basis for an NLP passage but at a much much easier level

Link

would be good to check these out

Levy, D.M. (1997) "I read the news today oh boy".

Check out this article and share with JD.

Read this paper

textbook reading 36.9- The human population continues to increase, but the growth rate is slowing.

textbook reading 36.10- Age structures reveal social and economic trends.

36.5- multiple factors may limit population growth

Textbook section 37.13- Invasive species can devastate communities.

Not Mathematical

textbook 37.10- Species diversity includes relative abundance and species richness.

This passage reminds me of Eve Sedgwick's essay on reparative reading.

Yes!

This emphasis on collaboration is particularly important in social reading. Through replies, each annotation is actually the beginning of a potential conversation.