User:Tancre/Special Issue 8/Annotated reader: Difference between revisions
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Addictive and Subtractive analysis of a text == | == Addictive and Subtractive analysis of a text == | ||
Working on those two different readers pushed me to confront them and the idea of | Working on those two different readers pushed me to confront them and the idea of adding and subtract material to the text perfectly fits those two different approaches. <br> | ||
For the special issue 7 reader we was more focused on the synopsis and abstract where an objective way to calculate the effective amount of subtraction was to | '''Subtraction''' | ||
For the special issue 7 reader we was more focused on the synopsis and abstract where an objective way to calculate the effective amount of subtraction was toconstrain the text to a certain number of words to each part, for example 500 word for the synopsis and 150 for the abstract. Personally my way of taking notes was always through a stage in between the actual text and the synopsis. This first level of subtraction, which can be called summary, is a perfect example to me as I just rewrite the text without the parts I don't need, mostly reusing the same phrases reworked to make them shorter. The text is left to acquire a new simplified form. The title can be the last form of this subtractive movement, in fact it can be asserted that a book with the main text and the title contains in one its total and its minimum form. | |||
:text > summary > synopsis > abstract > title (one word) <br><br> | |||
''' | '''Addiction''' | ||
text | On the other hand the addictive process require the cohexistence with the text as a means to constant reference. The other interesting thinsg are that everything can be added to a text, not only other text but images, sounds, videos... and there can be multiple layers written from different persons. | ||
The process of subtraction can be rethinked as an addiction too because it is always other text added to the main one, that even if not presented in a publication, it still exist. Anyway the main difference is about the content, we can think of several persons writing the synopsis of the same text but the content will be always almost the same, while different person writing notes probably will have different thoughts and so contents to add. In fact the taking notes process is developed as a free movement that can be very creative both in the content and in the way of represent it, and this explain why there can be a lot of different ways of taking notes. Another | |||
:text > notes > other texts > other notes (network of books and notes) <br> | |||
text > notes > other texts > other notes (network of books and notes) <br> | |||
To me a good way to think the analysis of a text is by placing it at the center of 2 processes which goes in two opposite direction. | To me a good way to think the analysis of a text is by placing it at the center of 2 processes which goes in two opposite direction. | ||
Revision as of 14:33, 19 February 2019
Annotated Reader
For this Special Issue 8 we started to work with Steve on an annotated reader.
On the contrary of the special issue 7 reader , the annotated reader analyse the text through an addictive process. The notes taken on the text constitute a para-text which exist in parallel or in an overlayed layer.
Each person has is own way of taking notes, as it can be done by writing around the text or just on a side, by highliting, underlining or earesing portions of the text to stress enphasis, by writing a parallel text on bottom of the original, or by inserting the notes in between two lines and so on...
Addictive and Subtractive analysis of a text
Working on those two different readers pushed me to confront them and the idea of adding and subtract material to the text perfectly fits those two different approaches.
Subtraction For the special issue 7 reader we was more focused on the synopsis and abstract where an objective way to calculate the effective amount of subtraction was toconstrain the text to a certain number of words to each part, for example 500 word for the synopsis and 150 for the abstract. Personally my way of taking notes was always through a stage in between the actual text and the synopsis. This first level of subtraction, which can be called summary, is a perfect example to me as I just rewrite the text without the parts I don't need, mostly reusing the same phrases reworked to make them shorter. The text is left to acquire a new simplified form. The title can be the last form of this subtractive movement, in fact it can be asserted that a book with the main text and the title contains in one its total and its minimum form.
- text > summary > synopsis > abstract > title (one word)
Addiction On the other hand the addictive process require the cohexistence with the text as a means to constant reference. The other interesting thinsg are that everything can be added to a text, not only other text but images, sounds, videos... and there can be multiple layers written from different persons. The process of subtraction can be rethinked as an addiction too because it is always other text added to the main one, that even if not presented in a publication, it still exist. Anyway the main difference is about the content, we can think of several persons writing the synopsis of the same text but the content will be always almost the same, while different person writing notes probably will have different thoughts and so contents to add. In fact the taking notes process is developed as a free movement that can be very creative both in the content and in the way of represent it, and this explain why there can be a lot of different ways of taking notes. Another
- text > notes > other texts > other notes (network of books and notes)
To me a good way to think the analysis of a text is by placing it at the center of 2 processes which goes in two opposite direction.
(one word) title < abstract < summary < text > notes > other texts > other notes (network of books and notes)