untitled

J-JOYCE LIST DISCUSSION ON ANNOTATIONS AND GLOSSING
November-December 1998 - FULL VERSION

A condensed version of these letters is also available at this site.

Mike Groden

To Michael Groden's Web Page

-----

1) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:25:34 -0500 (EST)
To: j-joyce@lists.utah.edu
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 02:36 AM 11/6/98 -0800, Jack Kolb wrote:
>An annotated edition provides information: it doesn't prejudice the reader to
>one critical view.

For over a week now, the sentence above (among others...) has been begging
in vain to to be used as a springboard for discussion of something
substantive. Such a discussion would furnish an alternative to debates about
specific people, or about the practical issues facing one or more projected
projects (do I redund myself? very well, I redund myself).
Maybe the basic question is:
What should annotations or an annotated edition provide? How does one draw a line between these two things:
(1) simply providing information (which unavoidably carries some
implications, and even suggests some interpretation(s))
and
(2) interpreting, or steering readers to some normative interpretation
It seems hard to draw a line. Yet people have been writing commentaries in
great abundance, and with some success, for millennia -- since c. 300 BCE in
the Greek tradition, for example.
This issue of what is sufficient or appropriate commentary vs. what is
supererogatory or inappropriately "prescriptive" has been bubbling for more
than a week, both here on the Joyce list, and over on FWAKE in connection
with a projected "McHugh 3." People seem to have very strong opinions about
these matters. Some folks say too much is never enough; give people
everything and let them focus on what appeals to them. Others say that any
commentary inevitably becomes layered over the text and obscures it, forcing
people to look at the text in one way and not another, while choking off
people's willingness to think on their own, maybe even creatively, about a
text's meaning(s).
So here are some places to start:
How do we locate the "golden mean" between "not enough" and "too much"?
What is commentary/annotation for, anyway?
How are those aims best achieved?
And how are the aims of commentary best achieved in an "electronic-age" environment?
I have ideas, but they are not perfect or final by any means. People who
find discussions of personalities or specific projects problematic or
dangerous to their present or future careers may find such topics easier to
discuss.
Or, maybe polemics are fun after all! We just feel guilty about having that
somewhat positive reaction to them.... Ergo, we read the polemics, but stay
out of the line of fire if we can!

-----
2) From: Edward B. Germain
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 98 00:12:33

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:25:34 -0500 (EST), Gregory {Greg} Downing wrote
re: annotations:
>How are those aims best achieved?
Jumping right into the middle of it: layering. Often you can bring up
an annotation with the major point in a few sentences. Then the little
"more" button, or some highlighted text can take the reader into more
arcane matters. This can be repeated, layer after layer. Then the
reader gets to choose when enough is enough. The editor must decide
what is primary, what is secondary, what is tertiary, etc. That's his
job.

>What is commentary/annotation for, anyway?
And consider what commentary might be like in, say, Dr. Johnson's age,
vs. our own. And how it might differ in, say, France than the American
Midwest.
But here's one very very imperfect attempt to try this matter. In the
last few months, as some of you know, I've set up a modest site dealing
with "The Sisters." I picked that because it was the first story in
Dubliners. My idea was not to annotate every possible thing, and
definitely not to add critical essays. This is a site especially for
first-time Joyce readers, and, having been interested in
computer-aided-learning since 1984, I decided to try to create a site
that would help readers teach themselves. I'm not sure I've succeeded,
but if you're interested, here's a sketch of what has happened:
So the first thing I did was annotate particular words (e. g. "feints
and worms"), mostly following Gifford. This was easy. When I got
stuck on a few details (e.g. a "safe") Ken Monaghan provided some great
information based on memories of his youth. Early on I had to decide
on the software to use, and on the optimum size of the screen. I
picked 600 x 800 pixels, though I viewed the site myself at 1280 x
1024. I decided not to adapt the site to lower resolutions; it would
take about 10 more hours to do that. By the time I did that, I figured
everybody would have hi-resolution screens, things change so fast in
computerland. I did make the horizontal bar that divides the
annotations from the text adjustable; readers can move it up and down
to suit their screen.
I decided to invent two hypothetical readers, Cabe and Alice. That way
I could put particular critical perspectives up without implying that I
favored one or the other. But as I got started, I changed lots of
comments and stopped trying to make their voices sound unique. I also
decided I ought to have a voice, too, so I thought about what critical
approach might be the one I'd add.
I decided, for a whole bunch of reasons, to try some introductory
Jungian concepts. So I wrote a few screens summarizing these, added
graphics, and linked them into the text. None of the critical
annotations at this point said "this is what it means." Indeed, you
have to work to find the Jung, much less apply it--and you're free to
just ignore it, too. Next I decided to have Cabe or Alice try some
structural analysis and to suggest a reading with other psychological
overtones. However, I fear my implementation this blurs the
personalities of Alice and Cabe.
Each of these commentators is identified by a differently colored
arrow, or by name, myself included.
So what I had at this point were annotations of two sorts: standard
glossary and interpretation. The latter ranged widely, but remained
fairly short (a few screens at most). I tried the site on some real
students. I found that truly beginning students had trouble with
symbolic language, with some of Joyce's implications or nuances. I
mean they just weren't up to such a sophisticated story--these are high
school students--and needed more help. So I wrote a long series of
screens on "levels of meaning" and tried to set that up so that you
could just jump to a summary if you knew what you were doing, but you
could go step-by-step if you didn't. I added a storyline to try to
grab kids who preferred narrative--hoping to entice them into the
critical discussion.
And I tried that on kids. I found out that a few of my few trial
readers remained puzzled by the story to the point where they had
trouble seeing it as a complete work of art. I note that some critics
have also been in this situation. Anyway, I wrote another series of
screens--again like the prior set, these barely referenced Joyce at
all--setting out a simplified version of Northrup Frye's division of
literature into Comedies, Tragedies, Romances, and Satires. And I had
fun writing my own brief history of satire, which does suggest that
most of the stories in Dubliners touch on this category.
At this point some of my students who are now in college tried out the
site. Their comments seemed encouraging, but one has dyslexia and
reading the story was hard for her. So I added streaming audio, so she
could hear it. Ken Monaghan, Director of the Joyce Centre in Dublin,
was so generous: he made a recording of the story for me. In the
future I might ask a class to make their own recording.
It was at this point that I realized I'd like real students' and real
Joycean's comments on the story, should they wish to leave them. So I
put up a message board. Unfortunately the first several dozen messages
had to be erased (computers!) but it's back now. And the whole thing
is awaiting January when I'll be teaching the story to a group of
Andover students.
So, if your interest has brought you this far, what I've tried to do is
to annotate one story in such a way that a student can read right
through the story without interruption, getting the dictionary
information as he needs it at the bottom of his page. If he wishes to
leave the story, however, he can jump to comments from Cabe or Alice,
or me. Some highlighted phrases in the text will take him to different
approaches to that part of the text. The approaches do not necessarily
go together.
Adjacent to the Annotated Sisters is the first published version of the
story, and another page that allows the user to scroll that version
against the final version.
What I want to see is if such an approach will work: will it excite new
readers of Joyce? As of now, I've had good feedback, and one message
with constructive criticism which I very much appreciated. Is the
approach anything that anyone else wants to emulate? I have no idea.
But it's an example of one hypertext Joyce that tries to teach without
lecturing. Would it be a model for annotating Ulysses? Well, it
differs dramatically in a few ways from the two approaches I have seen,
but I think it might be too limited in its scope. I really don't know
how useful this approach may prove to be.
I'm trying a different approach to "Clay," one based almost solely on
dialogues between readers, and containing some of the dialogue that
went on last spring in this list. In an off-site experiment I'm trying
to see if I can let readers add their own annotations directly to the
story. First results suggest that this is not efficient. But it
definitely depends on the awareness and skill of readers.
The whole problem of how to teach a text using the computers we have
today is a great puzzle. I'd love to use more graphics--computers are
good at that. But I didn't have them. Even if I did, would that help
the story? I remain curious, because I don't want pictures when I
read Ulysses. Joyce makes my pictures. I don't want a computer in
front of me, either; I like books. Still, I've gone and done this....
Well this is a long rambling post. If you've gotten this far, thank
you for your patience. If you'd like to provide some feedback, I would
welcome it. The site is http://www.andover.edu/english/joyce. Click
on DUBLINERS when you get there, and then on "The Sisters" and again on
"The Annotated Sisters." BTW, on the site there is a fully operational
search engine for this list, from 1996 to the present.

-----

3) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:37:41 +0200
From: Tsianides Costas

My subjective opinion. Annotate only for your pleasure .
Something you know for sure never annotate .
Never play the wise guy and expert.
Annotate only your own questions , doubts, after careful clarification
and study.
Express without prejudice your own ignorance, and doubts, and need for
enlightenment .
Open new channels for new annotations.
My poor opinion

-----

4) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:16:09 -0500
From: Michael Groden

A couple of days ago Greg Downing tried to steer our attention to questions
about what details in a text like Ulysses should be annotated and how, and
Ed Germain and Tsianides Costas began to answer them. As it happens, I
spent quite a bit of time in my NYU hypermedia-Ulysses lecture on Friday
asking similar questions to Greg's and sharing the same assumptions as Ed
outlined at the start of his message, I'd like to ask the questions I asked
at NYU to the list as a way of keeping this thread going.

Greg asked:
>What should annotations or an annotated edition provide? How does one draw a
>line between these two things:
>(1) simply providing information (which unavoidably carries some
>implications, and even suggests some interpretation(s))
>and
>(2) interpreting, or steering readers to some normative interpretation
>How do we locate the "golden mean" between "not enough" and "too much"?
>What is commentary/annotation for, anyway?
>How are those aims best achieved?
>And how are the aims of commentary best achieved in an "electronic-age"
>environment?

At NYU I asked about a specific, very short passage from "Aeolus." Myles
Crawford is about to show Stephen Dedalus and the others how Ignatius
Gallaher cabled the NY World about the murderers' escape route. He says:-

New York World, the editor said, excitedly pushing back his straw hat.
Where it took place. Tim Kelly, or Kavanagh I mean, Joe Brady and the rest
of them. Where Skin-the-Goat drove the car. Whole route, see?-
Skin-the-Goat, Mr O'Madden Burke said. Fitzharris, He has that cabman's
shelter, they say, down there at Butt bridge. Holohan told me. You know
Holohan? (Gabler ed., 7:638-43)

I agree fully with Greg that deciding how much to say in an
annotation is a critical decision and also with Ed Germain that what he
called "layering," giving small bits of information at first that open up
via links into longer and more complex analyses is the best way to present
information electronically. But what would be the right amount of
information to give here? (I'm talking about information for a first-time
reader, either reading the book alone or in a class. Check out Ed's site,
at http://www.andover.edu/english/joyce for his attempt to put the ideas
into practice for "The Sisters" - from the main screen, follow the links on
Dubliners, The Sisters, and The Annotated Sisters).
Gifford gives two notes, one for "Kelly . . . Brady" and one for
"Where Skin-the-Goat drove the car" (p. 141). Thornton annotates both
passages in a single, somewhat more scholarly note (p. 118; it cites a
then-recent article from vol. 1 of the JJQ). There are also briefer annotations
in the notes to Kiberd's Penguin Annotated Students' Edition and
Johnson's Oxford: 1922 Text (neither one available in the US). Fargnoli and
Gillespie's JJ A to Z gives separate entries for Skin the-Goat Fitzharris,
the Invincibles, and the Phoenix Park Murders, all cross-referenced to each
other. And there are longer, more critical and scholarly discussions in
books like Fairhall's JJ and the Question of History.
So (question 1), if you indicate to a reader/user that "Tim Kelly,
or Kavanagh I mean, Joe Brady and the rest of them. Where Skin-the-Goat
drove the car." has a link or links, what do you show the reader who
follows the link? What would you (individual list members) want to know?
Everything that can be known? As much as someone in Dublin in 1922 might
know? In 1904?
Fritz Senn has worried, as thoughtfully as anyone could, about the
limitations and dangers of annotations that are the downside of their
obvious benefits. In "Protean Inglossabilities," he asked, "At what time is
what kind of information profitable; or can information be, on occasion,
premature and detrimental? . . . It is possible to know too much, too soon,
before our minds have begun to resolve the possibilities of the text." In
the "Aeolus" passage, Crawford and the other characters get an incredible
amount of information wrong, from the date of the murders to the driver of
the car, to Skin-the-Goat's current whereabouts. So (question 2): How would
you handle all these mistakes? Would you tell the reader in a note?
Gifford's note on Skin-the-Goat closes with this sentence: "Skin-the-Goat
was not the proprietor of the cabman's shelter that Bloom and Stephen visit
in the Eumaeus episode; he had Gumley's job, minding a pile of paving
stones for the Dublin Corporation." Should a first-time reader be told
this? Would you want to know this at this point in your reading?
Fritz argues (and I agree fully) in his review of Gifford's book
that "notes by nature look resultative, not explorative. They pretend that
the goal has somehow been reached, when, usually and Joyceanly, the goal
itself is in question. Notes must end, inquiries never do." They give the
illusion of control over information, when Ulysses (I think) works so much
to undermine that control. To make a reader's experience more Ulyssean,
would you suppress the information about the characters' errors? make it
hard to find? What if some readers can't stand not knowing? Can we assume
one kind of reader, especially in a hypertext setting where user-choice is
a key factor?
Certainly, cross-referencing backwards must be OK. The passage
would be linked to Bloom's earlier thoughts in "Lotus Eaters" about the
Invincibles (5:378-83). The issue here is cross-referencing forwards.
Tsianides Costas suggested: "Something you know for sure, never
annotate." I would agree if you are annotating only for yourself. But if
you are trying to reach all possible readers, how can you know what someone
needs to know? My own knowledge of Catholicism is close to zero (a
limitation for a reader of Joyce, I know), and I need every bit of
information, even incredibly basic stuff. I would be reluctant to rely on
annotations from a Catholic editor who didn't comment on things he or she
knew cold.
Finally, Greg Downing asked about the difference between simply
providing information and interpreting, and Ed Germain separates what he
calls "standard glossary" and "interpretation" in his annotated "Sisters."
His site, with its hypothetical readers Cabe and Alice, presents differing
interpretations without claiming any one as authoritative. Many people who
talk about annotations say that the line between annotation and
interpretation is a vague one (just choosing what to annotate is an
interpretive choice) and that the two should be clearly distinguished. But
(question 3), how do you draw the line between them? The note on our
"Aeolus" passage in the Penguin Annotated Students' Edition reads, "The
Invincibles who assassinated Chief-Secretary Burke and Under-Secretary
Cavendish in Phoenix Park, May 1882. Skin-the-Goat Fitzharris drove the
decoy getaway cab and was sentenced to life, but paroled in 1902. Much of
the chapter criticizes the revivalist notion that all great deeds were done
in the past. To Joyce this idealization of the past was a thin cover-up for
the mediocrity of the present." The last two sentences, to me, cross over
the line into interpretation that does not belong in an annotation. What
would you do with these sentences? How would you let a reader know that you
are moving out of something resembling fact and into opinion and
interpretation? Would you stop with one interpretation?
With these questions in mind, I'd again ask, how would you annotate
this passage, or what would you want to find in an annotation or series of
annotations? Here is the passage once more:-

I'm interested in any thoughts anyone has on these questions.

-----

5) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:44:49 -0500
From: Simon Stack

I've been working on a closely detailed outline of Swann's Way, in an effort to bring out the effects (sometimes sustained over hundreds of pages) of nesting and subordination of subject matter, which are part of what give Proust's work its cathedral-like character. What I've noticed is that there appear to be surprisingly few reasons to indent one thing under another in this outline. It seems like a short list, something like: causality, identity/containment, exemplification/ generalization, association, resemblance, and contradiction. I've been thinking about how to present my outline on the computer screen and contemplating ways to extend the Windows95-style "drill down" outline view to distinguish the various "flavors of subordination" that are reflected in its indenting at every level.
Obviously, an annotation is always subordinated to the text it annotates. Perhaps there is a short list of "reasons to annotate," into which all annotations could be categorized, and perhaps for
each annotation, a legible distinction can be made in the graphical presentation of the fact of the annotation, showing the reason for (or the type of) the annotation, so that the reader can choose not to pursue the type of annotations she is not interested in. Further, the display of the text could be adjusted by the reader to display only certain types of notes.

-----

6) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:35:49 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

During the summer, I spent time with Michael Connelly's detective novels. The accounts and detective work were pleasant to read. In cases where a particular police procedure was described, or a witness's account given, there didn't seem to be a need to "get out the reference book" to see exactly how the actions related to defined police work or legal use of testimony.
One could have gotten out the books and travelled to the city where the novels took place, worked with policemen to learn from them, could possibly have become more expert than the author in the points of his story. One of Connelly's detectives is named Hieronymus Bosch, named thus because his mother liked that painter's painting. Maybe the effect that is created in the novels has analogies in painting--mood, tone, impression, image. Maybe exact knowledge and erudition expended on the chemistry of the paint isn't the main point. Probably the enduring qualities of the paint have relevance, yet some properties likely do not concern the author (painter) or the means was not chosen precisely for all identifiable properties of the means (paint, writing).
My most common take as a beginner in responding to Joyce's writing is that he takes the sounds of different persons' speech and infuses the language with indications of quite divergent thoughts, often dependent on a level of knowledge, and certainly on a variability in language use, that people simply do not generally have or use. For example, I don't know a town full of people likely to talk in phrases that evoke "what dreams may come" or other of Shakespeare's writing. It may be that as I gain knowledge of Joyce's writing, that my opinion will be different.
So, in response to the question, what should be annotated, with these comments as preliminary info, here is what I'd like to know.

The quote [(abler ed., 7:638-43 - letter 4]

1. How much context is there in the book for the appearance of the editor and the newspaper? More generally, how significant is a given particular and how much does context account for it? Little known significance, little reason to fully explain; continuing theme of book, less cause to explain an instance. Note--I don't have to be told how much context there is as an annotation. It's a question that I have in seeing the quotation. Amount of annotation related to my question depends on whether the needed or useful context is evident in the book.
2. Joyce evokes a scene - pushing back his straw hat - the guys are all standing around - now its time to get the stuff - been waiting for the answer.
3. Joyce telegraphs the communication - where - who - what.
4. What is the significance of having a "cabman's shelter"? Is that an express sign of not being wealthy?
5. What is the significance of the name of the bridge?
6. Does the fact that the info is in error (as explained in earlier note) get put into a frame for viewing? Is Joyce making something of the error? Is the error likely the main reason for the account? Novels have to be populated with words. Why these? :) (Not a reference to ye, gentle or not-so-noteably-gentle reader.)
7. What do we get from the passage; what does it answer to from earlier related info in the book; what is it followed with?

It is possible that commonly repeated literary methods need not be pointed out or that they could be indicated without words. Fact should be indicated in annotation as opposed to stating one's response (I mean indicate one's response as such.); yet there may be a benefit of giving some indication of, for example, telegraphic indications of conversation, with perhaps direct explanation or links to more info.

-----
7) From: Frank C. Dauenhauer
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:44:55 -0500

> I agree fully with Greg that deciding how much to say in an
>annotation is a critical decision and also with Ed Germain that what he
>called "layering," giving small bits of information at first that open up
>via links into longer and more complex analyses is the best way to present
>information electronically.

No dispute here. This is the way to go. But have the layers numbered or
defined so the user would know "how deep" he or she is getting. For example,
if the scale of interpretation in increasing complexity were 1 through 7, I
could reasonably limit myself to level 3.

>But what would be the right amount of
>information to giver here? (I'm talking about information for a first-time
>reader, either reading the book alone or in a class. Check out Ed's site,
>at http://www.andover.edu/english/joyce for his attempt to put the ideas
>into practice for "The Sisters" - from the main screen, follow the links on
>Dubliners, The Sisters, and The Annotated Sisters).

I have looked at this site and have tried to use it as your hypothetical
"first-time reader." I have been put off by its wordiness and
"personality"--too much chaff to try to find the grain of subject matter and
too much authorial point of view for a person just trying to learn the basic
meaning of a word or phrase.

>what do you show the reader who
>follows the link? What would you (individual list members) want to know?
>Everything that can be known? As much as someone in Dublin in 1922 might
>know? In 1904?

These should all be hypertext headings that one could click on (using the PC
as the medium), so I could choose to jump to such simple headings as
"Definition of terms," or more complex ones like "What was known in 1904,"
"What was known in 1922," "What we know now," "Scholars only," etc.

>In the "Aeolus" passage, Crawford and the other characters get an incredible
>amount of information wrong, from the date of the murders to the driver of
>the car, to Skin-the-Goat's current whereabouts. So (question 2): How would
>you handle all these mistakes? Would you tell the reader in a note?

No. Put it under the subject heading "Joyce's characters' mistakes."

>Gifford's note on Skin-the-Goat closes with this sentence: "Skin-the-Goat
>was not the proprietor of the cabman's shelter that Bloom and Stephen visit
>in the Eumaeus episode; he had Gumley's job, minding a pile of paving
>stones for the Dublin Corporation." Should a first-time reader be told
>this? Would you want to know this at this point in your reading?

No, I would not. But you could put it under a "Behind the scenes" heading.

> Certainly, cross-referencing backwards must be OK. The passage
>would be linked to Bloom's earlier thoughts in "Lotus Eaters" about the
>Invincibles (5:378-83). The issue here is cross-referencing forwards.
> Tsianides Costas suggested: "Something you know for sure, never
>annotate." I would agree if you are annotating only for yourself. But if
>you are trying to reach all possible readers, how can you know what someone
>needs to know?

You need to err on the side of the unknowing person. More advance users
could bypass the basics. We don't read all the articles in an encyclopedia,
just the ones we are interested in at the moment. At different moments, we
can read other articles.

>My own knowledge of Catholicism is close to zero (a
>limitation for a reader of Joyce, I know), and I need every bit of
>information, even incredibly basic stuff. I would be reluctant to rely on
>annotations from a Catholic editor who didn't comment on things he or she
>knew cold.
You are absolutely right. Use the encyclopedia analogy.

>Many people who
>talk about annotations say that the line between annotation and
>interpretation is a vague one (just choosing what to annotate is an
>interpretive choice) and that the two should be clearly distinguished. But
>(question 3), how do you draw the line between them?
>How would you let a reader know that you
>are moving out of something resembling fact and into opinion and
>interpretation? Would you stop with one interpretation? . . . how would
>you annotate this passage . . . ?

My quick and easy answer is to use Joyce's "scrupulous meanness" as a guide.
In practice, use the headings "Fact" and "Interpretation" and let the reader
decide which to read.

-----

8) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:27:29 -0500
From: Michael Groden

I'd like to thank Simon Stack, John Paul Fullerton, and Frank
Dauenhauer for responding to my questions about annotating details from
Ulysses. They all raise quite provocative points, and I want to pick up on
a few of them.
Both Mr. Stack and Mr. Dauenhauer mention the need to categorize
annotations. Mr. Stack talks about a list of "reasons to annotate," and Mr.
Dauenhauer suggests possible categories: "Definition of terms," "What was
known in 1904," "What was known in 1922," "Scholars only," etc. I like this
idea, and these categories, but I need to keep complicating matters. Known
by whom? What should someone be expected to know about the Phoenix Park
murders? Critics make a great deal of the fact that Crawford dates the
murders in 1881 and not 1882 (in a passage just before the one I quoted).
He is doing this 22 years after the event, and Ulysses came out 40 years
after. I started wondering how many people, in 1985, would on the spot get
the year John Kennedy was assassinated right, and how many would in 2003.
Of course, this is a newspaper editor we're talking about, but the question
always comes back to who the posited reader of Ulysses is. And, of course,
we're dealing with an author who set his book in Dublin without a lot of
guideposts for his non-Irish readers, so from the start there are great
gaps in what most readers would "know."
At NYU I also used the example of Throwaway and the Ascot Gold Cup
Race. Should the note tell readers why Bantam Lyons raises his eyes at the
end of "Lotus Eaters" (5:531-41)? Should a reader be told simply to "watch
this space"? What can we consider was "known" at the time? and is the
default time 1904 or 1922? After all, Bloom doesn't even know a race is on
that day. Is he our model?
I'd be curious to hear from people who have recently read Ulysses
or are reading it now if you were told or found about Bloom's inadvertent
tip about Throwaway as you read "Lotus Eaters," if you learned about it
later in the book, or if you missed the whole thing. Whichever case, are
you glad you read this detail in Ulysses the way you did or the way you
were taught?
I think this approaches the kind of thing Mr. Fullerton was asking
in terms of context. Is there any way to know that Crawford is getting a
lot of his details wrong from the context? No one contradicts him in the
office--you need to read a note to know about the date or to learn that it
wasn't Skin-the-Goat who drove the getaway car that Crawford is so excited
about. Otherwise, you might think he's a reliable authority. The factual
note would point out the errors and let the user come to whatever
conclusion seems appropriate about Crawford. My question is about whether
even that factual note is tactful. And whether the same problem exists for
Throwaway, where we are talking about a detail that leads to an event of
importance for Bloom.
Finally, Mr. Fullerton's question about the cabman's shelter--"4.
What is the significance of having a "cabman's shelter"? Is that an express
sign of not being wealthy?"--gets to the heart of the kinds of details that
need to be explained. How do we learn that a "cabman's shelter" is a public
place and not a home Skin-the-Goat, or whoever, lives in? Is the term in
use anywhere now? We probably were told what it means by a teacher, or read
it somewhere. The context doesn't help. Probably it is safe to define a
detail of this kind without any agonizing. (There is a photo of a cabman's
shelter in William York Tindall's The Joyce Country, pp. 142-43.)

-----

9) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:57:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 12:12 AM 11/14/98, Edward B. Germain wrote:
>Jumping right into the middle of it: layering. Often you can bring up
>an annotation with the major point in a few sentences. Then the little
>"more" button, or some highlighted text can take the reader into more
>arcane matters. This can be repeated, layer after layer. Then the
>reader gets to choose when enough is enough. The editor must decide
>what is primary, what is secondary, what is tertiary, etc. That's his
>job.

Right, layering/nesting is surely a basic principle, as you and others who
followed you on this thread have said. In light of the *variety* of
annotational types (i.e., different kinds of annotations) and partial
annotational structures that others subsequently suggested on the thread,
one obvious question is what the exact structure of the layering would
be.... Probably different structures and different types of annotations in
different passages....
Still, maybe we could pull back a bit and ask (1) what kinds of *principles*
would generate the set of *possible* categories or levels to be drawn on, in
various ways, at various points, in a layered set of annotations, and then
(2) what would determine which categories/levels/layerings would be best in
a given passage?
Hmmm, maybe such choices would be kind of like grammatical _constructio ad sensum_, i.e., it would depend on what is (somewhat uniquely) demanded by
the particular passage--episode, paragraph, sentence, whatever--rather than
being logically systematizable.
Or, maybe the principles will emerge if we keep talking and thinking. Or if
I go on to the next messages on the thread and think about them more
carefully.... Onwards.

>>What is commentary/annotation for, anyway?
>And consider what commentary might be like in, say, Dr. Johnson's age,
>vs. our own. And how it might differ in, say, France than the American
>Midwest.
Right -- so what should "commentary" be for Ulysses? In 1998 ff.? I guess
anglophone culture in all its complexity and varieties is a general context
there, given that Ul. is in English. But many readers of Joyce and
Joyce-scholars are not anglophone, so perhaps we need to take care not to be
too parochial.

>If you'd like to provide some feedback, I would
>welcome it. The site is http://www.andover.edu/english/joyce. Click
>on DUBLINERS when you get there, and then on "The Sisters" and again on
>"The Annotated Sisters."
Yes, and I've been there several times and would recommend it. Is it the
same project you mentioned to me in Toronto in June 1996, by the way? How
long have you been working on it? In your discussion of how you developed
and refined it (a discussion I clipped for space reasons in this reply), it
seemed as if it must have taken quite a number of years to develop.

> BTW, on the site there is a fully operational
>search engine for this list, from 1996 to the present.
Yes, I checked this out myself and gave some feedback a couple of weeks ago. It's very useful, and I'm sure Ed would like other feedback too. It did have
a few accidental private posts in it when I tested it (whoa, Nellie...), but
they have all been carefully excised by hand at this point. So don't be
disappointed if it's just three years of Joyce-list posts you can search
though, ad lib. I find it faster to check, at times, than my old in-boxes!

-----

10) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:08:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 09:16 PM 11/15/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>Myles Crawford is about to show Stephen Dedalus and the others how Ignatius
>Gallaher cabled the NY World about the murderers' escape route. He says:
>(Gabler ed., 7:638-43) [letter 4]
> So (question 1), if you indicate to a reader/user that "Tim Kelly,
>or Kavanagh I mean, Joe Brady and the rest of them. Where Skin-the-Goat
>drove the car." has a link or links, what do you show the reader who
>follows the link? What would you (individual list members) want to know?
>Everything that can be known? As much as someone in Dublin in 1922 might
>know? In 1904?

The first layer would be something as simple and uncontroversial as
possible, I'd imagine. That simple layer would maybe almost be easier to
write, or safer to write, or safer to finalize, **after** the more detailed
layers are finished, because it would be a short extract of a couple of
basic facts from those detailed layers, and would also constitute the bridge
between the text and the detailed layers for those who go beyond the
first/basic layer. Fritz Senn is quite right that, particularly with things
that are either difficult, or seen as difficult, people have a tendency to
(1) find an authority to "clear things up," (2) absorb what the authority
says, and (3) put their feet up on the couch, or at least go on to the next
thing. Students are not the only people who do this. So start with something
minimalistic that is uncontroversial, factual, and not "interpretive" -- and
along with that simple bit of information, add a "more" link, or maybe
*several* possible links that can take people in more than one direction.
It's getting late and I'm not sure I'm thinking clearly after a long day,
but here's at least a lick -- with or without a promise -- for the passage
from Aeolus:
(1) a concise but decently thorough discussion of what is clear (and what is
not clear) about the Phoenix Park murders; such a discussion could probably
be linked to from various Ul. passages in which the P.P. murders come up,
without having to be "located at" any one of them (as it would have to be in
a Gifford/Seidman hard-copy commentary); at the end of, or along with, this
account would be a series of links to places in Ul. where the P.P. murders
come up, as well as a link to the bit described just below (this link would
come next to the link to the Aeolus passage in question)
(2) a careful, clear discussion of what is "wrong" about the account given
in Aeolus, and a link at the end of that to the next bit
(3) moving into the "hypermedia criticism" area (which would be
"interpretation" rather than commentary, and clearly indicated as such), a
specific discussion of possible "reasons" this info might be wrong (there
are lots of "reasons," depending on what angle(s) you want to take, quite a
few of them mutually compatible probably, and several of which Mike Groden
has already mentioned), and a link from there to
(4) (still in "hypermedia criticism" rather than commentary, and labelled as
such), a more general discussion of misunderstanding, uncertainty,
confusion, and other epistemological issues in Ulysses, which might be
linked to from various Ul. loci where these matters come up

A few observations on this tentative/rushed setup --
(A) as one follows links one gets to more specialized, less uncontroversial,
more interpretive material -- if one chooses to go there (you don't get
there by accident)
(B) each link should give a concise but definite sense of what you get to by
following the link -- that way there are no bad surprises or spoilers of the
kind Mike Groden rightly worries about; nor does anyone have to read
interpretation or criticism if s/he doesn't want to; nor does anyone have to
read interpretative bits under the misapprehension that they give
uncontroversial factual information
(C) if there are multiple layers and links, the navigation has to be as
quick and easy and intuitive as possible
(D) if there is a concern about seeming authoritative, then (i) make clear
what is sheer background information and use layering to keep it closer to
the text, and (ii) make clear what is interpretation as well as the fact
that there are multiple conflicting and/or complementary interpretative
possibilities; (ii) can be accomplished in the way one writes and presents
the interpretative bits

This would be reachable by following a link to the Eumaeus passage at the
*end* of layer (1) above, which would place it three full layers down from
the sheer text; it would also be discussed in layer (2), which also places
it three layers down. In both cases, one would be aware before clicking the
"give-away" link that one was following a "spoiler" route: on layer (1), you
would be clicking on a link to the Eumaeus passage (17.whatever) in layer
(1), so you would know you were choosing to go *forward* in the book to
things revealed later (just like someone who flips forward in a regular book
to see what happens later); as for the other path to this information, in
the link from layer (1) to layer (2) you would be told, concisely, that if
you follow the link you are going to have facts about this and later
passages spelled out for you

> Fritz argues (and I agree fully) in his review of Gifford's book
>that "notes by nature look resultative, not explorative. They pretend that
>the goal has somehow been reached, when, usually and Joyceanly, the goal
>itself is in question. Notes must end, inquiries never do." They give the
>illusion of control over information, when Ulysses (I think) works so much
>to undermine that control. To make a reader's experience more Ulyssean,
>would you suppress the information about the characters' errors? make it
>hard to find? What if some readers can't stand not knowing? Can we assume
>one kind of reader, especially in a hypertext setting where user-choice is
>a key factor?

I'd guess that this could be dealt with by layering, and by making clear at
each layer what you get to if you follow links forward -- caveat
lector/link-tor. The thing about notes is that they can look resultative --
and to the extent that they are accurate and factual they are
unexceptionably resultative. But there is always more information, factual
or interpretative, to be gleaned or created. Just because we know "x, y, and
z" about a passage does not mean there is no more factual information to
discover and no more interpretation to be generated. (If we draw the
conclusion that interpretation is exhausted, that is our mistake --
especially if multiple possibilities are provided, and they are presented as
*not* normative/final/exhaustive.) In fact, the more solid information a
user has (if s/he wants it), and the more minimally valid interpretive
options a commentator makes conveniently available, the more any one fact or
perspective is dethroned -- if coronation of facts or interpretations is the
big concern here.

> Tsianides Costas suggested: "Something you know for sure, never
>annotate." I would agree if you are annotating only for yourself. But if
>you are trying to reach all possible readers, how can you know what someone
>needs to know? My own knowledge of Catholicism is close to zero (a
>limitation for a reader of Joyce, I know), and I need every bit of
>information, even incredibly basic stuff. I would be reluctant to rely on
>annotations from a Catholic editor who didn't comment on things he or she
>knew cold.

This is a very important point -- there's no one standard set of generally
shared cultural information at this point in cultural history. An early
20th-century annotator of the _Divina commedia_ rightly argued that the
commentator should be like Peter, the traditional gatekeeper of heaven --
i.e., the idea is to err in opening rather than to err in refusing entry.

-----

11) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:03:28 -0500
From: Brandon Kershner

In rsponse to Mike Groden's and Greg Downing's recent posts on annotation:
perhaps the largest "background" problem raised by this issue is that of
authority, and the whole question of whether and when objective answers are
possible. I faced this recently in writing a guidebook for the
Twentieth-Century Novel in English which includes a glossary of "basic
terms" at the end, such as "plot," "character," "novel," and so forth. I
began the glossary by saying: "To include in a glossary some basic terms
used in discussing the novel seemed innocent enough until fairly recently.
But once we begin to question basic assumptions about the novel, we also
begin to suspect that setting out simple definitions of basic literary
terms is a way of begging the important questions that literature can
raise. There are no disinterested definitions, in literature or in life.
Avant-garde writing, writing by women, writing by people of color or by the
colonized, and in some ways modern writing itself all frequently put into
question our inherited ideas about plot, character, narration, and even the
fundamental question of what constitutes literature."
I know none of this is surprising, but my point is that stating some
principles like this at the outset of a glossary might be a necessary
gesture. Then, in discussing, say, "character," my discussion generally
would begin with classical definitions and move toward postmodern attacks
on the entire notion of character, whether in human beings or in
representations. So in a sense the definition I gave offered some sort of
solid ground and then took it away again. I imagine this can be
frustrating for a reader, but it was my way of trying not to mislead a
student about absolutes.
My experience was that the hardest thing to settle on was tone, and the
tone of annotations is probably as important as the formal procedures the
annotater follows. In a case like that of Crawford's speech of "Aeolus," I
would suggest that any possible questions (such as whether Crawford "should
have known" the date of the murders) be explicitly left open. For
instance, I did hire a friend to consult the New York World for the time of
the trial to find out if Gallaher's story and "map" was actually run. My
friend didn't find it, but I'd be hesitant to say it didn't exist (perhaps
in another newspaper, perhaps under the name of another reporter)

.-----

12) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:30:16 +0100
From: Fritz Senn
Subject: tactful glossing
Just a short biased view on one significant issue:
> Should the note tell readers why Bantam Lyons raises his eyes at the
>end of "Lotus Eaters" (5:531-41)? Should a reader be told simply to "watch
>this space"? What can we consider was "known" at the time? and is the
>default time 1904 or 1922? After all, Bloom doesn't even know a race is on
>that day. Is he our model?

I am dogmatically against any anticipatory gloss in this representative
instance. With all potential knowledge of Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Irish
history, theology etc etc. at one's ideal fingertips, no reader would know
now the names of race horses. After all, Bloom himself does not know what
is going on.
One also does not tend to add footnotes early on in a detective novel and
point out the culprit.
Of course in electronic, hyperlinked texts, all information is available
around several corners, but at least not all notes have to be thrust on our
attention. Eventually there is no such thing as tactful glossing; but at
least let readers make an effort and - that's the overall rule - FIRST
try to find out for themselves.
But we would and will never reach an agreement. As long as we are aware of
the pitfalls and complexities.

-----

13) From: Greg Sullivan
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:10:03 EST

You wrote, "Known by whom? What should someone be expected to know about the Phoenix Park murders? Critics make a great deal of the fact that Crawford dates the murders in 1881 and not 1882 (in a passage just before the one I quoted)"...but the question
always comes back to who the posited reader of Ulysses is."
Joyce made no puzzle as to who his works were geared towards, the scholars.
Part of why Crawford misquotes the date of the Phoenix Park Murders in the
"Aeolus" chapter, in my estimation, goes to one of the themes of the chapter,
which is Parnell. Joyce uses the much of the chapter metonymically to call
attention to the absence of the fallen chief. In my senior thesis i have
linked much of the contextual and thematic associations to the uncrowned king.
I.e. Moses, phoenix park, Isaac Butt, Nelson, adultery, Healy, The
Bloom/Boylan and O'Shea/Parnell parallel, The betrayal of Odysseus by his crew
and the similarity to Parnell's betrayal, Phyris, Trafalgar, the Jews, Greeks,
and Irish in relation to the Romans and English, the mention of the newspaper
Parnell started, etc...

"At NYU I also used the example of Throwaway and the Ascot Gold Cup
Race. Should the note tell readers why Bantam Lyons raises his eyes at the
end of "Lotus Eaters" (5:531-41)? Should a reader be told simply to "watch
this space"? What can we consider was "known" at the time? and is the
default time 1904 or 1922? After all, Bloom doesn't even know a race is on
that day. Is he our model?
I'd be curious to hear from people who have recently read Ulysses
or are reading it now if you were told or found about Bloom's inadvertent
tip about Throwaway as you read "Lotus Eaters," if you learned about it
later in the book, or if you missed the whole thing. Whichever case, are
you glad you read this detail in Ulysses the way you did or the way you
were taught?"

To this I think that the annotation should at first be a question posed to
the reader. Asking a question as to why this is stated in a particular way,
gives the reader a chance to figure it out for himself, and instructs the him
to look more carefully at the text. Maybe a note on inter and intratexuality
might be in order as well as what Prof. Stack called left and right context.

-----

14) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:40:36 -0800
From: matt knight

While I realized upon awakening this morning that Gregory Downing had
already replied to this post in a much less excursive manner than I was
very likely to, I was both thankful and soon the wiser for his remarks.
However, I would like to add a few comments on Mike Groden's question
concerning 'Throwaway'.

Michael Groden wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear from people who have recently read Ulysses
> or are reading it now if you were told or found about Bloom's inadvertent
> tip about Throwaway as you read "Lotus Eaters," if you learned about it
> later in the book, or if you missed the whole thing. Whichever case, are
> you glad you read this detail in Ulysses the way you did or the way you
> were taught?

I think that the 'Throwaway' thread might be the perfect 'teaser' for
instructors to throw at first-time readers of _Ulysses_. This initial
riddle-spoiling should not affect the overall enjoyment of the novel for
a 'novice', for it immediately opens up the essential aspects of humour,
syntactical ambiguity, and, most importantly, the self-referential
aspect in both the novel and the figure of the narrator. Given this one
'key' to _Ulysses_, a new reader should be able to throw off the usual
anxiety associated with approaching the blue book for the first time,
and realize that s/he should be edacious yet curious; attentive yet
esemplastic; and most importantly of all, not about to delve into "the
most difficult book of all time"--bound by all the baggage which that
familiar tag carries with it.
The above is only an opinion based on my own first experience with
_Ulysses_; for I was given the 'Throwaway' teaser, but left to my own
devices thereafter. This one small revelation helped me immensely in
terms of reading strategy: I'm not sure, however, what a non-student
freshwo/man would think. I may have been robbed of the pleasure of
solving this one textual riddle, but M'Intosh himself makes up for
losing this single allusion. Certainly opening up another book of
annotations when the going gets rough sets a dangerous precedent for the
oncoming path through the novel, in my view--and by this I mean for a
first-reading only. Upon subsequent reads, I have found the secondary
sources invaluable; but I will always cherish and curse the days of
delirium surrounding the first time.(Dictionaries and history texts were
always primary sources, however.)
Briefly, since Gregory and Michael have already elucidated many of the
main points concerning on-line annotation, I think that hypermedia texts
need to play by very different rules than the professors at our
Universities. Once a reader steps into the world of 'clicking', no
amount of layering and warning is going to keep him or her from
exhausting every path of meaning and interpretation at every possible
turn; at least that has been my take on human nature these past couple
decades.(And even if a clicker stops, it may be more from exhaustion
than fear of over-elucidation). Therefore, I don't believe the
hypermedia text need to suffer the same anxiety as the professor, who
needs to question at every turn, "Am I telling them too much? Too
little? Should I read it to them? Is there therapy for this?"etc. So how
deep should the layering go on-line? As deep as the 'knowledge' of the
day--it's always easy to append.
My problem is, I suppose, that I still can't get my head around all
this technology; a problem that I shouldn't bore you all with here. I'm
also late for Irish class. But we shouldn't lose sight of the 'book'
beneath the 'event' that appears to be gestating--regardless of the
benefits to scholars everywhere, it still might kill the unforgettable
masochistic pleasure of the first, nearly unguided read of _Ulysses_.
That in itself is one way to feel like those few, those happy few, who
picked up the book back in the 20's. But if kept separate, these two
vehicles for approaching _Ulysses_ will be invaluable to all levels of
scholars; I'm just not sure that a hypermedia voyage is recommended to
all landlubbers. Once they get their legs, however...

-----

15) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:45:50 -0500
From: Jonathan Steinhart

On 19 Nov 1998, Greg Sullivan wrote:
> To this I think that the annotation should at first be a question posed to
> the reader. Asking a question as to why this is stated in a particular way,
> gives the reader a chance to figure it out for himself, and instructs the him
> to look more carefully at the text. Maybe a note on inter and intratexuality
> might be in order as well as what Prof. Stack called left and right context.

I think this idea of posing a question as the first "layer" of
commentary is a brilliant one. In this way the inquisitive reader who
*wants* to figure things out for himself but doesn't always know where
to look is provided with a hint. Then, after investigation, he can
compare or flesh out his findings with those of the annotator. I say
this as the kind of reader I mention above: I want to discover the
nuances on my own, but I'm not always aware when there's something
more to what I've read that what I've taken from it.
Of course, this still doesn't solve the problem of annotative
objectivity vs. interpretation. The questions in this case are still
in danger of pointing to a certain reading of the text, thus narrowing
the reader's interpretation in spite of its intention of doing the
opposite

.-----

16) From: Edward B. Germain
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 19:27:51

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:27:29 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>I'd be curious to hear from people who have recently read Ulysses
>or are reading it now if you were told or found about Bloom's inadvertent
>tip about Throwaway as you read "Lotus Eaters," if you learned about it
>later in the book...

Michael, I've been preoccupied elsewhere, regret late reply. No
question about it. You read Lyons' "I'll risk it" and ask yourself,
"Risk what?" You keep reading:
"Mr Boom folded the sheets again to a near square and lodged the soap
in it, smiling. Silly lips of that chap. Betting...." Here you KNOW
Lyons is off to bet. That's all you need to know. No more notes,
nothing. No note.
When I first read the book I remember being puzzled at this section. I
guessed that Lyons had gotten some kind of tip from Bloom, but I had no
proof. Later, when I discovered Throwaway at 20:1 I hollered eureka!
When my students read the book together, there are lots of places like
this where they don't know what is going on. Just as with scholars,
even after dozens of readings. I tell them it's life: hang on until
you can figure it out. They do, we do, and later, looking backwards,
everything is clearer.
No note at 5:531-41.
Your principle at work: backward notation is fine. Fritz' view that
you NEVER give away the future is right.

-----

17) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:22:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 09:16 PM 11/15/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>Many people who
>talk about annotations say that the line between annotation and
>interpretation is a vague one (just choosing what to annotate is an
>interpretive choice) and that the two should be clearly distinguished. But
>(question 3), how do you draw the line between them?

This is a very difficult question. If, to choose one of many possible
examples, a user feels that social history, as defined from some very
specific theoretical and methodological perspective, is the one correct way
of looking at a text, or at least the best way of doing so, then that user
will think that all annotation not serving that end is misguided,
misleading, or nugatory. So the more specific and well-defined a given
user's angle is, the higher the percentage of material s/he will find
useless or inappropriate. But that is really a function of the individual
user's attitude and approach. What a hypermedia commentary needs to do is
set itself up so that the widest possible variety of users can *easily find*
what they want and *easily ignore* what is not of interest, without
expending an annoying amount of time making an effort to find or ignore things.
You are quite right that all annotation is already interpretation in some
sense. So it's impossible to solve the problem in an absolute way. There is
no bright line between the two things. The problems have to be dealt with
through detailed decisions where a lot of factors are brought into balance,
not through implementation of an either/or type of criterion. For example, a
given user may have a specific angle on the world and thus on how to think
about fiction; what s/he may consider indispensable annotation rather than
interpretation may look very much like tendentious interpretation to another
user who has a different angle on what is true/natural as opposed to
tendentious or quirky or secondary.
It's really not any different from the 1998 problem of teaching a class
consisting of several dozen people of different backgrounds, attitudes,
interests, levels of information, learning styles, etc. The same class
content is not going to please everyone equally. Leaving aside the often
very considerable disagreements that will exist about various cultural
issues, some in the class will find a given proportion of (for example)
"discussion" (as against "lecture") to be "too much," "not enough," or
"about right." In our individualistic and pluralistic contemporary culture,
many attitudes and approaches are possible, in contrast to earlier periods
that believed one mode was adequate for everyone. Contemporary modes make
this problem of divergent taste (and to some extent, of intolerance for
others' tastes) ineliminable.
All one can do as a commentator is try to say something as
ground-zero/zero-grade as possible at the initial commentary level, *while
also* remaining vivid and engaging. Meanwhile, one must also provide users
with the clearest and easiest possible avenues to the more specifically
focused materials that "specific-perspective" readers demand. But these
materials would come under the clearly marked categories of "analysis" and
"criticism" -- either newly written for a hypermedia Ulysses, or republished
from the existing corpus of published work about Joyce and Ulysses.
Of course, the fact that a whole array of specific-focus materials is
available may in fact encourage specific-focus users to explore and think
about more angles than just the one they may be most comfortable with
initially.... Maybe that wouldn't hurt....
Maybe one practical corollary of all this would be that a commentary should
*finalize* its ground-zero "initial level" only *after* it is clear what the
array of more specific approaches will be.
Or, alternatively, is it still possible to construct, on our complex
cultural terrain, a general "comment"/note, about a given word or phrase or
sentence, that would not be seen by some users as tendentious, even if
covertly or by omission? Whatever gets put in the initial-commentary slot
(i.e., "annotation" as opposed to "interpretation") will tend to be seen as
the beneficiary of a certain "privileging" in comparison to material
("analysis," "criticism") that is only (so to speak) available at a further
remove from the text itself. Then again, one could view distance from the
text (i.e., number of levels of remove) as a marker either of increasing
sophistication or of increasing marginalization. Only a simplistic
perspective would discern only *one* aspect of distancing from the text
itself but not the other. (But adversarial modes of thought tend to be
simplistic for a number of reasons.)

>The note on our
>"Aeolus" passage in the Penguin Annotated Students' Edition reads, "The
>Invincibles who assassinated Chief-Secretary Burke and Under-Secretary
>Cavendish in Phoenix Park, May 1882. Skin-the-Goat Fitzharris drove the
>decoy getaway cab and was sentenced to life, but paroled in 1902. Much of
>the chapter criticizes the revivalist notion that all great deeds were done
>in the past. To Joyce this idealization of the past was a thin cover-up for
>the mediocrity of the present." The last two sentences, to me, cross over
>the line into interpretation that does not belong in an annotation. What
>would you do with these sentences? How would you let a reader know that you
>are moving out of something resembling fact and into opinion and
>interpretation? Would you stop with one interpretation?

Passages like the first two sentences and passages like the last two
sentences from the Penguin Annotated quotation above almost inevitably tend
to be found *together* in hard-copy commentaries, though for reasons
discussed above this rightly annoys many users of such commentaries. The
last thing a hypermedia commentary needs to do is fall into pitfalls to
which hard-copy commentary was subject due to its own particular structural
rules and limitations. The first two sentences quoted above sound close to
what a ground-zero comment on the passage might be (subject to modification
given the level of detail that would be furnished in a general sketch of the
P.P. murders and their aftermath, a node of commentary that would be linked
with multiple passages in Ulysses). However, the last two sentences would
belong in an "analysis"/"criticism" segment that would be "linked to" from
this and other passages in the book.

-----

18) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:16:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 08:17 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Frank C. Dauenhauer wrote:
>>what do you show the reader who
>>follows the link? What would you (individual list members) want to know?
>>Everything that can be known? As much as someone in Dublin in 1922 might
>>know? In 1904?
>These should all be hypertext headings that one could click on (using the PC
>as the medium), so I could choose to jump to such simple headings as
>"Definition of terms," or more complex ones like "What was known in 1904,"
>"What was known in 1922," "What we know now," "Scholars only," etc.

I'd agree that the general approach should be to move from the text itself
to gradually more specialized and "narrowcast" information. One thing I'd be
leery about is labelling links as being "for" one "type" of user/person or
another. That seems unnecessarily exclusive. Probably the best thing would
be to describe links substantively/factually -- the type of content rather
than the "type of person/user" it is "for." I doubt that there is any piece
of information that *only* "scholars" would be interested in, and no one
else. Everyone is a "scholar"/expert on *some* subjects and not on others,
and that doesn't always correlate with academic credentials. Anyway, enough
alienation is already stirred up simply by giving people a lot of
informational options that some may not want. Having "apartheid" links would
probably be even more problematic, and with fewer upsides.

>You need to err on the side of the unknowing person. More advance users
>could bypass the basics. We don't read all the articles in an encyclopedia,
>just the ones we are interested in at the moment. At different moments, we
>can read other articles.
>>[Mike Groden had said:] My own knowledge of Catholicism is close to zero
>>(a limitation for a reader of Joyce, I know), and I need every bit of
>>information, even incredibly basic stuff. I would be reluctant to rely on
>>annotations from a Catholic editor who didn't comment on things he or she
>>knew cold.
>You are absolutely right. Use the encyclopedia analogy.

This encyclopedic analogy Mr. Dauenhauer uses hits the nail on the head.
(1) The whole history of epic and encyclopedia have been intertwined since
as far back as the period in ancient hellenic culture when Homeric epos was
becoming the core of an emerging literate educational system. One of the
reasons Homer was made the core of the hellenic educational syswtem was the
"consensus" sentiment that everything crucial about cumulative hellenic
culture had been subsumed in Homer. All different kinds of speeches,
different character types, the gods and their modes, even how to build a
raft: it was all there. In fact, the term encyclopedia was invented at this
period in order to express the epic and pedagogical idea of the totality of
culture. Encyclopedia is from _enkuklios paideia_, "in-circular [or,
encyclical] paideia." _Paideia_ (culture) means that that which you transmit
to the next generation (_pais_, child, cf. English pediatrician, pedagogy,
etc.). From at least as early as the 5th/4th century BCE, literary epic in
the homeric tradition tended to have a considerable encyclopedic component,
though various subsequent cultural periods defined their complete "circle of
culture" in various ways, of course. One of the key genres Ulysses plays
itself off of is of course epic, as is clear from the book's title and from
the systematic use of homeric points of departure: Ulysses as the epic of
advanced modernity, mutatis mutandis.
(2) Joyce was encyclopedic in many ways. His attempt to include/subsume is
clear in everything -- the wide-ranging interior monologues of the opening
episodes, the catalogic turn of so many details of the book, "Thom's talking
aloud," etc. FW is even more thoroughly and inclusively encyclopedic than
Ulysses.
(3) The whole history of commentary is encyclopedic. We could talk about
Quranic or Confucian-canon commentary along these lines, but to keep the
discussion concise let's just restrict ourselves to the commentary tradition
in the Greek/Roman/medieval/modern line of descent, which begins with (what
else...?) homeric commentary in the hellenistic period (late 4th cent. BCE
onwards), and then expands to other epics and other genres with the passage
of time. From our modern angle, one of the most noticeable things about
ancient commentary is that it frequently has little to do with "explication
du texte" -- Jupiter will be mentioned and there will be a big disquisition
on Jupiter, many of the details of which seem to have only very
indirect/"background" connections to what is going on in the text in
general, let alone in the specific locus/lemma to which the disquisition is
keyed. That's because the point of the commentary is cultural and
encyclopedic more than it is "exegetical" of the specific passage in its
textual context. Very little of what we'd call literary interpretation
exists in the ancient culture. What there is of it tends to appear not in
commentaries, but in treatises from people like Aristotle, pseudo-Longinus,
philosophers engaging in allegorical interpretations, etc. Meanwhile, things
that we know from the efforts of modern analysts the ancient literary
authors deliberately did in their work are often not mentioned in ancient
glosses -- in the case of certain kinds of literary effects, never mentioned
at all.
That's because the function of ancient commentary was not centrally
exegetical or literary-critical, although some exegesis or furnishing of the
background for exegesis does take place in ancient commentaries (4th cent.
BCE through 5th cent. CE). No, the central focus of ancient commentary was
pedagogical, cultural/enculturative, paideutic. So you'll get explanations
of difficult syntactic points, lectures about religion/mythology and
history, etc. -- and nearly not as often such things as what was the poet
trying to do, how does this poem "mean," what are the major thematic issues.
In fact the "commentary" (glossa) genre is in fact probably *grounded* in
general *pedagogical* practice -- specifically, in the *classroom* practice
of the most esteemed of the grammatikoi/grammatici (teachers who used
canonical poems to enculturative ends). The classroom procedure was to go
through a text line by line (seriatim), stopping to give linguistic or
historical or mythological mini-lectures as the text gave occasion for them.
The written commentary genre is distilled from or expanded from that
classroom practice.
Ulysses meanwhile is at least as encyclopedic as ancient epic -- more so,
really. And it exercises this encyclopedic impulse toward a much wider range
of culture and experience than the ancients considered appropriate to epic
or even to written culture at all. To deal adequately with the degree and
range of demands that Ulysses places on the commentary tradition requires
great care. As Mr. Dauenhauer argues, the encyclopedic mode (as facilitated
by the new structural and technical possibilities of hypermedia) allows
inclusion of the greatest information for the greatest number. But the sheer
size and range of the "referential field" of Ulysses also requires great
care, in choice of material, coordination and cohesion, concision, etc.

-----

19) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:17:31 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Greg says:
> (I.) the text of Ulysses should be available plain and clean, and

Bravo ! I agree entirely. And in order to remind myself of this I
always try to work in class from a completely unmarked text (BTW one
virtue of a new text is that we wouldn't have to go on putting up with
the disgraceful binding of the Gabler. I have had four or five and they
have all of them disintegrated.)
Thus I can try to speak about what is there in front of us all
rather than consulting my own annotative accretions. If I don't remember
it, it doesn't get talked about. In this way I can cash in my own quite
phenomenal forgetfulness and unclutter my presentation !
My object is not to solve all problems with the text but to try to
facilitate a rich first-time reading, and in particular to give readers
permission (often through reading-aloud) to discover what a very funny
text it is.
I think I probably look a little like one of those archetypal Scots
rushing along in front of their curling watchumacallems (I was going to
say irons) with their brooms, trying to remove impediments.

> (II.) the basic level of annotation should be a concise and simple and
> uncontroversial as possible.

Again, I agree. However, in practice, what I do assign, (with endless
qualifications and hesitations,) is Gifford, but what I would really
LIKE to be able to assign is Gifford Lite. Unfortunately it doesn't
exist.

-----

20) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:11:51 -0500
From: Michael Groden

People responding to this thread have sent in some very thoughtful and
useful posts. I appreciate them very much, and I'm sure that others on the
list do, too. After being out of commission for a couple of days because of
a hard drive crash, I want to pick up on some contributions:

Greg Downing asked:
> (1) what kinds of *principles*
>would generate the set of *possible* categories or levels to be drawn on, in
>various ways, at various points, in a layered set of annotations, and then
>(2) what would determine which categories/levels/layerings would be best in
>a given passage?

and then suggested that the categories might have to change with each
passage. In a subsequent posting, he suggested these guidelines:
>(A) as one follows links one gets to more specialized, less uncontroversial,
>more interpretive material -- if one chooses to go there (you don't get
>there by accident)
>(B) each link should give a concise but definite sense of what you get to by
>following the link -- that way there are no bad surprises or spoilers of the
>kind Mike Groden rightly worries about; nor does anyone have to read
>interpretation or criticism if s/he doesn't want to; nor does anyone have to
>read interpretative bits under the misapprehension that they give
>uncontroversial factual information
>(C) if there are multiple layers and links, the navigation has to be as
>quick and easy and intuitive as possible
>(D) if there is a concern about seeming authoritative, then (i) make clear
>what is sheer background information and use layering to keep it closer to
>the text, and (ii) make clear what is interpretation as well as the fact
>that there are multiple conflicting and/or complementary interpretative
>possibilities; (ii) can be accomplished in the way one writes and presents
>the interpretative bits

Several people touched on these matters. Greg Sullivan suggested:
>To this I think that the annotation should at first be a question posed to
>the reader. Asking a question as to why this is stated in a particular way,
>gives the reader a chance to figure it out

and Jonathan Steinhart seconded:
>I think this idea of posing a question as the first "layer" of
>commentary is a brilliant one. In this way the inquisitive reader who
>*wants* to figure things out for himself but doesn't always know where
>to look is provided with a hint.

Fritz Senn:
>I am dogmatically against any anticipatory gloss in this representative
>instance. With all potential knowledge of Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Irish
>history, theology etc etc. at one's ideal fingertips, no reader would know
>now the names of race horses. After all, Bloom himself does not know what
>is going on.
>One also does not tend to add footnotes early on in a detective novel and
>point out the culprit.
>Of course in electronic, hyperlinked texts, all information is available
>around several corners, but at least not all notes have to be thrust on our
>attention. Eventually there is no such thing as tactful glossing; but at
>least let readers make an effort and - that's the overall rule - FIRST
>try to find out for themselves.

In some ways these answers are coming from different places, some people
thinking of first-time readings, others of later ones. That is exactly as
it should be, and I posed the question in many ways to try to get at how to
satisfy both needs in one project. If my hypermedia project were aimed at
only one group, the job might be somewhat simpler--maybe. With Greg
Downing's warning in mind (in response to Frank Dauenhauer's suggestion of categories like
"Definition of terms," or more complex ones like "What was known in 1904,"
"What was known in 1922," "What we know now," "Scholars only," he sensibly
replied about the last category that "having 'apartheid' links would
probably be even more problematic, and with fewer upsides"), I wonder if it
might be useful to have two "doors" into information, one for first-time
readers (students in classes, people reading the book on their own) and the
other for other readers (more advanced students, people reading the book a
second or subsequent time, critics and scholars). They wouldn't be labelled
this crassly, but the point would be that one "door" would take you to
information linked with pedagogy in mind: information would be linked in
carefully controlled and labelled ways, the initial notes might be
questions, etc., interpretation would be very, very carefully distinguished
from commentary. The other door would lead to information that wouldn't
need to be quite so concerned with these distinctions, since it can be
assumed that the reader has experienced the whole book, is looking for
analysis and interpretation, etc. Of course, both doors lead to the same
information pools, but the link structure--at least at the upper levels as
Greg described them--would be very different in the two cases.

Cyn suggested:
>I just think it should be
>controlled- no using it to do your papers, etc, for you.
There are already ways that some authoring programs do allow considerable
control. Storyspace, for example (the software used for most commercial
hypertext fictions), has what it calls "guard fields," which are conditions
that have to be met before a user can visit a particular screen or screens.
(For example, you can't get to Screen 25 unless you've already visited
Screen 10. You can't get to a note identifying Throwaway unless you've
already visited the screen later in Ulysses that gives away the game.)
Something like this is possible, but, it seems to me (at least right now)
quite a bit too dictatorial. I'd rather guide people and discourage them
from going to a screen too soon. But if they want to go anyway, why stop
them? (See next response.)

Matt Knight wrote:
>I think that the 'Throwaway' thread might be the perfect 'teaser' for
>instructors to throw at first-time readers of _Ulysses_. This initial
>riddle-spoiling should not affect the overall enjoyment of the novel for
>a 'novice', for it immediately opens up the essential aspects of humour,
>syntactical ambiguity, and, most importantly, the self-referential
>aspect in both the novel and the figure of the narrator.

This is partly why I used the Throwaway example. In many ways, it is a very
good test of how we might proceed. I have sometimes told students what is
going on when we get to the Lotus Eaters passage precisely for the reasons
Matt Knight suggests here: if they seem discouragingly confused, ready to
give up, by this point, it gives them a handle on how the book is working.
That is why I'm resistant to absolutes like "never" tell the information,
although I certainly know what Fritz Senn and Ed Germain are saying. But,
of course, as I and others keep repeating, the way in which users are
informed as to the existence of the secret is very important. Hypermedia
gives us many more options than print does, and we need to use those
options wisely.

Also from Matt Knight:
>I think that hypermedia texts
>need to play by very different rules than the professors at our
>Universities. Once a reader steps into the world of 'clicking', no
>amount of layering and warning is going to keep him or her from
>exhausting every path of meaning and interpretation at every possible
>turn; at least that has been my take on human nature these past couple
>decades. (And even if a clicker stops, it may be more from exhaustion
>than fear of over-elucidation).

I've tried to teach hypertext fiction (texts like Michael Joyce's
"Afternoon," Carolyn Guyer's "Quibbling," Shelley Jackson's "Patchwork
Girl") in three different classes recently (all graduate courses), and my
experience has been quite the opposite. With respect, I would now say that
you simply can't generalize about how people will react. Some of my
students did indeed click everywhere they could, but others followed every
default path, others sought out the map that shows the structure of links,
others simply stopped. I think that you have to resist the assumption that
all users will approach an electronic presentation of information in the
same way. Therefore,

still Matt Knight:
>Therefore, I don't believe the
>hypermedia text need to suffer the same anxiety as the professor, who
>needs to question at every turn, "Am I telling them too much? Too
>little? Should I read it to them? Is there therapy for this?" etc. So how
>deep should the layering go on-line? As deep as the 'knowledge' of the
>day--it's always easy to append.

I respectfully disagree here, too. The anxiety might not be the same as for
the classroom teacher, but (as these posts point out), every aspect of the
hypermedia presentation needs to be thought out thoroughly, probably even
more thoroughly than a classroom plan because the result is so much less
evanescent. Otherwise, you end up leaving the user "lost in cyberspace," as
the old cliche goes, or you give them a pile of undigested information that
they can't get through. "Is there therapy for this?" That's another
question, of course.

A few more responses, if your patience aren't exhausted already:

Matt Knight:
> But we shouldn't lose sight of the 'book'
>beneath the 'event' that appears to be gestating--regardless of the
>benefits to scholars everywhere, it still might kill the unforgettable
>masochistic pleasure of the first, nearly unguided read of _Ulysses_.

One of the crucial features of my hypermedia presentation is a clean,
uncontaminated text of Ulysses -- no links, no toolbar, just the words.
This is what the user will see first, and then s/he can start call up
whatever else is desired. The text on the screen won't look like a book, by
design, but an "unguided read" will be possible. Of course, I don't think
that anyone would read Ulysses, or even a much shorter book, on a screen in
1998, but any project like this one is predicated on improvements to the
hardware and software that will make that kind of reading more likely in
the future.

Greg Downing:
>For example, a
>given user may have a specific angle on the world and thus on how to think
>about fiction; what s/he may consider indispensable annotation rather than
>interpretation may look very much like tendentious interpretation to another
>user who has a different angle on what is true/natural as opposed to
>tendentious or quirky or secondary.

This is absolutely essential. It is very easy to lose sight of, especially
if the class you are teaching or a student in isn't as diverse as the one
Greg described or if you hang around people with interests and backgrounds
similar to your own. Example: at the James Joyce Society meeting at the
Gotham Book Mart in October, Trui Vetters, a PhD student at Rutgers, gave
what I thought was a very exciting talk about the gaze, both Gerty's and
Bloom's, in Nausicaa. It was original, clear, very aware of theory but free
of jargon. Because of the number of speakers on the program that evening
and the way the evening proceeded, there was no time for questions from the
floor. As people left, I learned that many people in the back of the room
thought that the talk was hopelessly obscure, jargon-riddled, beside the
point. My point (agreeing fully with Greg) is that, in ways that are very
different from writing a book or article, you can't take anything for
granted in positing the hypermedia reader/user, and you have to find a way
of including all possible kinds of readers.

Finally, also from Greg:
>Maybe one practical corollary of all this would be that a commentary should
>*finalize* its ground-zero "initial level" only *after* it is clear what the
>array of more specific approaches will be.

This is very possible, like writing the introduction to a book after
everything else is written. Of course, if it is done well a user wouldn't
know that the ground was built after everything it is supposed to support
was constructed (or have I got this inverted? are we going down or up in
our levels?)

Comments on any of this?

-----

21) From: Frank C. Dauenhauer
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:16:26 -0500

Just a suggestion, with an eye toward lessening the potential for users'
confusion with "layered" help: let the reader of the hypertext edition of
Ulysses "log in" to the book at any of a number of levels, which h/she can
change instantly by clicking on a numbered icon: e.g.,

Level Kind of help provided
===== ===================
0 - None. Read the book with no intervention
1 - First-time reader/rank beginner. Basic help (definitions of
terms, etc.)
2 - Second-time reader. More in-depth help
3 - Advanced beginner (where I think I would spend most of my time)
. . . (You get the idea)
9 - Doctoral candidate, just verifying what is probably already
known

Then, each level can have its own sub-categories such as "What was known . . .
" "What was not known . . .," etc.

-----

22) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:01:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 02:41 PM 11/16/98 -0500, John Paul Fullerton wrote:
>My most common take as a beginner in responding to Joyce's writing is that
>he takes the sounds of different persons' speech and infuses the language
>with indications of quite divergent thoughts, often dependent on a level of
>knowledge, and certainly on a variability in language use, that people
>simply do not generally have or use. For example, I don't know a town full
>of people likely to talk in phrases that evoke "what dreams may come" or
>other of Shakespeare's writing. It may be that as I gain knowledge of
>Joyce's writing, that my opinion will be different.

You raise an important issue here, namely, all the evocation and wordplay in
Ulysses. Perhaps this should be left to the delectation and discretion of
individual readers. But maybe on the other hand we should note that there
are entries in the secondary literature that already deal with such issues--
Thornton's _Allusions in Ul._ is maybe a prime exhibit here. And some
users might *desire* hints along these lines as a way of sharpening or (to
mix metaphors) jump-starting their own sensitivity to such evocations...? If
a commentary pointed out such evocations, it would have to do so at a decent
remove from the main text and basic commentary. Furthermore, such evocations
would have to be described accurately at the link from which users would
access material that would be seen as "spoiler" stuff by a good many users.

>...how significant is a given particular
>and how much does context account for it? Little known significance, little
>reason to fully explain; continuing theme of book, less cause to explain an
>instance.

These are important concerns, absolutely. But these complementary concerns
are complicated by other likewise complementary concerns.... (I.e., we are
not dealing with black-vs.-white issues, and thus do not have the luxury of
black-vs.-white annotational principles or choices.)
(1) How many particulars in Ulysses have little significance? You leave an
escape hatch by including "known." Of course no one would write a note or
comment saying "who knows what this means? nothing as far as anyone knows."
Silence makes perfectly clear that nothing worth saying is currently known
(to the commentator(s)) about a given detail. (To be clear, let's make
explicit that this is not the same as saying "people argue about which
possible significance(s) are valid, or more valid than others" --
commentaries do *that* all the time.) However, *many* details in Ulysses
seem to be chosen for their cluster of possible resonances.
(2) Ulysses is mostly continuing themes, really. (As is FW -- even more so.)
Some of them are pretty obvious. But in my experience (with myself, with
other readers) people find themselves constantly discovering examples of
repeated themes they hadn't noticed before, and feel silly about not
noticing earlier. So maybe one question here is, Which is better? To leave
people to discover on their own as many repeated themes as they happen to
notice? Or to point these repeated themes out in commentary, after they are
noticed, given that the ability to locate such "pointing out" on a level of
commentary removed from the plain text and from the most basic level of
commentary? If one rejects this second option and approves the pure
discover-it-yourself option, that's kind of like saying that Thornton's
_Allusions in Ulysses_ and other items from the secondary literature should
not have been published -- they are cribs.
However these questions get worked out, two basic principles should be:
(I.) the text of Ulysses should be available plain and clean, and
(II.) the basic level of annotation should be a concise and simple and
uncontroversial as possible.
Above, we are discussing possible more specialized features....

>4. What is the significance of having a "cabman's shelter"? Is that an
>express sign of not being wealthy?

So much of 1904 culture, let alone 1904 Dublin culture, is lost on the
twenty-somethings of 1998 -- let alone the thirty-somethings and
forty-somethings. I find myself needing to explain (e.g.) what "wearing
mourning" is when talking with students who have 1300 or 1400 SATs plus two
or three years of undergrad education. Having grown up in the 60s/70s, I
don't have any direct experience of "wearing mourning" (inter alia) either--
just information from books. A book as steeped in the details of its
moment as Ulysses simply subsumes or alludes to a lot of its contemporary
culture unapologetically, without explaining. A book as steeped in the
details of our perhaps even more variegated and wide-ranging 1998 culture
would require even more explanation/clarification of this type, a century
after its fictional moment....

>5. What is the significance of the name of the bridge ("Butt bridge")?

See comments above on (A) the evocative language of Ulysses, and (B) what
has little significance vs. considerable significance.

>6. Does the fact that the info is in error (as explained in earlier note)
>get put into a frame for viewing? Is Joyce making something of the error?
>Is the error likely the main reason for the account?

A major cluster of Ulysses themes has to do with problems of knowledge,
perspective, etc. That's why I'd maybe suggest some discussion of the
differences between the newsman's account and "wie es eigentlich gewesen"
(i.e., what "really" happened in the Phoenix Park, and its aftermath),
placed of course at several removes from the plain text and the most basic
commentary-level, and linked in turn to critical/theoretical discussion of
these kinds of "knowledge/perspective/etc." issues in Ulysses, which would
be part of the "analysis"/"criticism" section. Such discussion could either
be from already-published material about Joyce/Ulysses, or newly written.

>7. What do we get from the passage; what does it answer to from earlier
>related info in the book; what is it followed with?

See discussion above -- i.e., the para. beginning "(2)," above, and the
para. just above on problems of knowledge etc

-----

23) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:29:38 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

Greg Downing offered the following
> From our modern angle, one of the most noticeable things about
> ancient commentary is that it frequently has little to do with "explication
> du texte"

> Very little of what we'd call literary interpretation
> exists in the ancient culture. What there is of it tends to appear not in
> commentaries, but in treatises from people like Aristotle, pseudo-Longinus,
> philosophers engaging in allegorical interpretations, etc.

While reading all of Greg's note, before reaching the quoted comments, I was thinking of Longinus ("On the Sublime") and Aristotle ("Poetics") as both offering theoretical insight into literature. Thinking of the Old Testament as older than "The Odyssey", I remembered the diminutive link in Longinus' comment about Moses as "the lawgiver" while offering (his - Longinus') examples of the sublime. To follow that idea just for another moment, today my computer was saying to me (a program that I have) a passage from the Old Testament where God says to Moses that he will speak only to him (Moses) in a dark cloud on the mountain so that the people will revere him forever. (In my memory, I took the reference to be first person reference to Moses, though I could possibly be wrong.) In any case, there's a possible example of Longinus' idea of sublimity in the passage about God talking with Moses.
The more extensive point, however, and I hope that it isn't offensive, is the considerable attention that Jewish religious writers have given to interpreting the books of Moses. I don't have scholarly information to give the years and fully make the point of interpretive work, yet interpretation of some kind seems evident. As an example of interpretive work, one point that I've had a little exposure to is the scriptural law not to cook an animal in it's mother's milk. The present day interpretation of that law is that it is not right for orthodox Jews to eat milk and meat products together (like a cheeseburger).
The original law, in my imagination, along with a parallel passage not to take a young bird and its mother from a nest, seems to convey the idea of not "wiping out" the resources that we use and on another level the sense of having mercy. One could say that more interpretive work is evident in my comments :)
So, to try to keep it relevant, there may be indications of more interpretive work for the years of literature during the time of "The Odyssey" and thus the history of interpretation may go back farther and examples of it be more plentiful.

-----

24) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:53:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

>At 11:40 AM 11/19/98 -0800, matt.knight@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>>Upon subsequent reads [of Ulysses], I have found the secondary
>>sources invaluable; but I will always cherish and curse the days of
>>delirium surrounding the first time. (Dictionaries and history texts were
>>always primary sources, however.)

Yes, a first (or fortieth) read *without any voice but the text* must be
available. A basic principle should be that the plain text is the "default,"
and one has to search out, deliberately, any commentary or analysis. The
point is to help people deal with the text, if they want help -- not to
obscure or mar the text.

>>Once a reader steps into the world of 'clicking', no
>>amount of layering and warning is going to keep him or her from
>>exhausting every path of meaning and interpretation at every possible
>>turn; at least that has been my take on human nature these past couple
>>decades.(And even if a clicker stops, it may be more from exhaustion
>>than fear of over-elucidation). Therefore, I don't believe the
>>hypermedia text need to suffer the same anxiety as the professor, who
>>needs to question at every turn, "Am I telling them too much? Too
>>little? Should I read it to them? Is there therapy for this?"etc. So how
>>deep should the layering go on-line? As deep as the 'knowledge' of the
>>day--it's always easy to append.

This is an interesting passage, because it argues two complementary things:
(1) The user has freedom, and therefore a hypermedia commentary does not
have to worry about what to provide -- it should simply provide various
features, and then let people freely use or ignore those features, as they
see fit.
(2) But your other point is just as important -- that providing something
invites its use by everyone, or by a lot of people, and this alters how many
people would experience the book. This is a big concern

.-----

24A) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:55:44 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

> One of the crucial features of my hypermedia presentation is a clean,
> uncontaminated text of Ulysses -- no links, no toolbar, just the words.

It seems that in even the "simplest" view, availability of "word detective" consulting could be useful.

"abstralutely emphazing"

Point at first word
post-em appears "could be abstractly + absolutely "

Point at next word
post-em appears "could be emphasizing + emphatically + haze"

Foreign language help could be even more useful (foreign language to English).

One observation, the availability of the help doesn't have to change the fundamental display of words; at the same time, when help is only available for some words, having to check a word (point at a word) to find out whether there is more info, could cause more work for the user.

Another comment.

How about a map of the action? (Like a game, map of Dublin, we see locations where action takes place.)

Animate movement through the map/action. (User may observe movement through the map.)

Allow clicking on a section of the map for time/action/context info.

-----

25) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:03:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

>At 10:06 AM 11/19/98 EST, CynLennin@aol.com wrote:
>>I do... support the hypermedia version- I just think it should be
>>controlled- no using it to do your papers, etc, for you. It's a shame you
>>can't regulate things like that. :)
>>(Big brother is watching)

It seems as if, given how much has been written about Ulysses, it would be
easy to crib without getting caught. But actually, there isn't *that* much
written about Ulysses -- not so much that you can't keep with most of it if
you make an effort....
Cribbing would maybe be especially dangerous in connection with a hypermedia
document that can be easily searched for character-strings. (Add your own
emoticon here....)

-----

26) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:31:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

>At 10:03 AM 11/19/98, Brandon Kershner wrote:
>>...perhaps the largest "background" problem raised by this issue is that of
>>authority, and the whole question of whether and when objective answers are
>>possible. I faced this recently in writing a guidebook for the
>>Twentieth-Century Novel in English which includes a glossary of "basic
>>terms" at the end, such as "plot," "character," "novel," and so forth. I
>>began the glossary by saying: "To include in a glossary some basic terms
>>used in discussing the novel seemed innocent enough until fairly recently.
>>But once we begin to question basic assumptions about the novel, we also
>>begin to suspect that setting out simple definitions of basic literary
>>terms is a way of begging the important questions that literature can
>>raise. There are no disinterested definitions, in literature or in life...."

Absolutely true, and utterly crucial -- especially given how significant
Ulysses was in problematizing these matters, and in getting us to think
about the complexity of these matters. There's no justification for
generating commentary about Ulysses that ignores or undercuts some of its
core themes. And you're quite right that one has to walk a fine line (hmmm,
Scylla and Charybdis...), responding adequately both to the radical
inclusiveness or subsumption visible in Ulysses, and to the problematization
and uncertainty that it also posits and thematizes. (Maybe these two
"opposites" find common ground in the idea of "complexity"....)
As you say (above, but especially below), the matter has to be dealt with at
the level of commentary approach/style/voice/tone -- i.e., how to lay out
information without foreclosing that which should not be foreclosed, and
give information without giving the impression that this is the final
information or the final answer (i.e., "everything is `clear' now").

>>...stating some
>>principles like this at the outset of a glossary might be a necessary
>>gesture.
Yes, some basic statements of principles or approach should be included.
Maybe they will be clear by the time the thing is done....!

>>My experience was that the hardest thing to settle on was tone, and the
>>tone of annotations is probably as important as the formal procedures the
>>annotater follows.
Yes, very important -- especially given how easy it is to write without
thinking *consciously* about "tone" (and thus without having some degree of
control over it)....

>>In a case like that of Crawford's speech of "Aeolus," I
>>would suggest that any possible questions (such as whether Crawford "should
>>have known" the date of the murders) be explicitly left open.
Yes, why say what a character "should" have known? Simply point out, or even
leave between the lines as one recounts the P.P. murders and their
aftermath, the things that Crawford is "right" and "wrong" about....

>> For instance, I did hire a friend to consult the New York World for the time of
>>the trial to find out if Gallaher's story and "map" was actually run. My
>>friend didn't find it, but I'd be hesitant to say it didn't exist (perhaps
>>in another newspaper, perhaps under the name of another reporter).

Yes, it's important not to say things in such a way that they can easily be
undercut by subsequent discoveries. If something is not known for sure, say
it's not known for sure rather than sweeping the possibility of new
information under the rug by means of a (sweeping?) statement....

-----

27) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:10:06 -0500
From: Murray J. Gross

The current trend of the GLOSS discussion causes me some concern. There
seems to be a polarity of "us vs. the reader". It's shocking enough
that academics feel they want to withhold information from their
students and not make it too easy for them but I thought that Groden's
question concerned a wider audience.
We are experiencing today a revolution in information, probably more
profound then any other and what makes it unique is that many of us are
aware of this revolution. We are living in a sea of information. The
focus of Groden's project should not be the limitation of information
but only it's organization. I recently purchased a CD-rom which on one
disk contains the whole 32 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and
by the time Groden is ready to produce his project, we can expect at
least 10 time that capacity of the media of his choice.
Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
choice is and should be with the reader. Not to worry, the text will not
be completely annotated. The greatness of Joyce as with Shakespeare,
Dante, or Proust is that the text in infinite. The more annotation the
greater and more profound will be the appreciation.
With all respect to Fritz Senn who I hold as one of the giants of Joyce
scholarship, some detective novels could with profit be annotated. We
are all aware of the wonderful glosses on Sherlock Holmes. Who done it,
is rarely an issue with Joyce. Most times we are not even aware that
there is an issue that needs elucidating. Indeed one of the main
purposes of the annotations will be to spotlight problems as well as
attempts to solve them.
This approach, for Groden, is much harder. In a way its easy to be a
censer. We are not high priests with secret or arcane information to
which the commoners should not be exposed.
Let there be more information not less.

-----

28) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:30:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 09:10 AM 11/24/98, Murray J. Gross wrote:
>The current trend of the GLOSS discussion causes me some concern. There
>seems to be a polarity of "us vs. the reader". It's shocking enough
>that academics feel they want to withhold information from their
>students and not make it too easy for them but I thought that Groden's
>question concerned a wider audience.

You're absolutely right that there should not be any such disjunction. In
fact, if we are concerned with avoiding inaccurate and problematic
"either/or's," we probably need to apply that principle as consistently as
possible. This would mean noticing and noting that while some posters on
this thread (several of them not "academics," in fact) *have* made a
scholarly-user-vs.-amateur distinction, others (including me) have
consistently argued *against* making such a distinction (while bearing in
mind that different readers will of course have different priorities).
I'd argue that all information potentially interesting to some users should
be provided -- but the place where "the rubber meets the road" is when you
have to figure out how to arrange/structure/layer/nest the material so that
a whole range of people with different (and, to some extent, it seems,
conflicting) desires and needs can easily find what they want and ignore
what they don't want.
This is the most frustrating but potentially the most important and
rewarding part of designing such a project. To go back to the "classroom"
analogy I employed on this thread a few days ago --
The most difficult thing about any kind of discourse at this late date is
the multiplicity of sometimes almost belligerently conflicting perspectives
and worldviews that constitute the current cultural scene. Some people want
framework x -- not just for themselves, but mandated for others too because
it is the most important or only true perspective, or has been
inappropriately ignored or disprized in the past, or is being
inappropriately ignored or disprized at present, for nefarious reasons. Some
people feel precisely, or almost precisely, the same way about the
conflicting or competing framework y. Of course, in a classroom, you have
everyone sitting there at once -- they cannot all have different experiences
though they can certainly react to the same events/discourse differently.
All one can do as a teacher is try to formulate a perspective that is
*broad*/general enough for all the jostling worldviews to be comfortable
within it -- while hoping that those who really want *one* specific
framework mandated to the *exclusion* of others do not get overly frustrated
by the latitude a broad/inclusive framework provides.
But the same problem arises in discussion of a commentary intended for a
wide array of users. The classroom problem is somewhat attenuated because
all users can operate in isolation, interacting in their own ways with the
commentary and creating their own experiences. But when we talk about
overall structure (as we are doing), the whole commentary and all its
features are in view. Also, when a given user with a given perspective uses
a completed commentary, s/he will inevitably come across items that s/he
doesn't want. So the problem of mutual intoleration arises when a discusser
of a planned commentary, or a user of a completed commentary, thinks: "Why
should I be inconvenienced with this stuff I don't want, and of whose very
existence I disapprove? Furthermore, other people shouldn't be exposed to
this stuff -- it's bad for them, it ruins the book."
Lots of people seem to do this. It's kind of odd, given twentieth-century
interest in multiple perspectives and toleration. Maybe Heidegger and others
are right to say that modernity opened up individualism with its
possibilities for formulating multiple worldviews -- but with the
consequence that individuals formulate worldviews, and then jockey to
increase the sway and the allegiance their own perferred options receive.
Tyrants wanting to be enthroned, so to speak.
Again, I think the only way to *try* at least to do *something* about this
phenomenon is:
(1) to start from the principle of a clean text for those who want that, or
who want that in some circumstances
(2) to ensure that the initial annotation is as uncontroversial, simple and
concise as possible -- though that "initial" material might well be the last
thing in a commentary that one could *finalize*
(3) to structure/layer/nest material so that adherents of the various (and,
to some extent, mutually intolerant) worldviews that are out there would
have the greatest chance of (A) being able to stick with what they want, and
(B) not being put out by what they can't stand, either for themselves or
even for others.

>We are experiencing today a revolution in information, probably more
>profound then any other and what makes it unique is that many of us are
>aware of this revolution. We are living in a sea of information. The
>focus of Groden's project should not be the limitation of information
>but only it's organization.
Exactly.

>Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
>choice is and should be with the reader. Not to worry, the text will not
>be completely annotated. The greatness of Joyce as with Shakespeare,
>Dante, or Proust is that the text in infinite. The more annotation the
>greater and more profound will be the appreciation.
Unexceptionable. But again the issue is *arrangement* so that a *variety* of
users (not "academics" vs. "others"...) can get the most out of the thing
with the least frustration or annoyance.

-----

29) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:34:06 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Murray Gross wrote:
>Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
>choice is and should be with the reader. Not to worry, the text will not
>be completely annotated. The greatness of Joyce as with Shakespeare,
>Dante, or Proust is that the text in infinite. The more annotation the
>greater and more profound will be the appreciation.

I hope that it is clear that this is how we are doing the hypermedia
Ulysses. All my questions about annotation are directed to the question of
how the materials should be organized, and how the user can get to them
most usefully. People differ radically on what "most usefully" means. That
is where all the complications lie.

-----

30) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:28:21 -0500
From: Brian Hurley

Murray Gross wrote:
> Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
> choice is and should be with the reader. Not to worry, the text will not
> be completely annotated. The greatness of Joyce as with Shakespeare,
> Dante, or Proust is that the text in infinite. The more annotation the
> greater and more profound will be the appreciation.

and Greg Downing replied, though not referring directly to the above
statement:
> Again, I think the only way to *try* at least to do *something* about
> this phenomenon is:
> (1) to start from the principle of a clean text for those who want
> that, or who want that in some circumstances
> 2) to ensure that the initial annotation is as uncontroversial,
> simple and concise as possible -- though that "initial" material might well be
> the last thing in a commentary that one could *finalize*
> (3) to structure/layer/nest material so that adherents of the various
> (and, to some extent, mutually intolerant) worldviews that are out there
> would have the greatest chance of (A) being able to stick with what they
> want, and (B) not being put out by what they can't stand, either for themselves
> or even for others.
It is of some concern to me, and to others, if I recall correctly Fritz
Senn's post to this thread, that the very act of annotating such a text
as Ulysses always threatens to corrupt one of the novel's central
'themes', indeed one central to Ulysses's very modernist aesthetic: the
textual--and thus de facto inexact--nature of historical, and other,
knowledge. While Mike Groden has been careful to stress the unfinalized
nature of all annotations (the need for allowing such annotations to
*not* be final pronouncements on the given referent), it seems to me
that any annotation risks just this dillemna. Let me state here that I
am by no means a detractor of Ulysses in hypermedia--I have seen a few
prototypes and am very excited by its possilibities, however...
Does one not feel somewhat secure, smug even, after turning to Gifford
and Thornton to elucidate one's own hazy knowledge of, say, the P.Park
affair to find it summarized by G. or T. in five lines, with which one
can then return to Joyce's text fairly satisfied that one knows what
went on in P.P in 1882? I often feel this way, as I simultaneously feel
grateful that such legwork has been done and made accessible to me by
such annotative guides. I recognize the bind. There is an undeniable
'comfort factor' that comes from reading an annotation that must, and
this is by no means a new claim, radically alter the experience of
Ulysses and of its Modernism.
Of course it can be argued the Ulysses has never offered a
less-annotated reading experience since at least Stuart Gilbert.
Moreover, many scholars of Modernism have lamented that the movement's
aesthetic has long ago been emptied of it's radical power. And yet is
doesn't help matters, IMHO, that some readers still wish to equate Joyce
with Dante, Shakespeare, or even Proust, as though all great writers are
using the same aesthetic means to the same 'great' ends.
Questions:
1. Is there really no sense in which too much annotation may work
against the spirit of Ulysses, its themes, its take on history,
knowledge, and the aesthetic? Is it a question of censorship, or of
sensitivity to literary history? Is there not the possibilty that a
reader of an infinitely annotated (to take the limit-case) edition of
Ulysses might end up with more knowledge (albeit of the mediated,
textual kind) of 1904 Dublin than was possible for even the most
historically-accute resident of 1904 Dublin, of 1922 Dublin? More
knowledge than that possessed by Joyce? And if so, would not this
reader gain a kind of position vis a vis Ulysses that might efface the
very point about the gaps and haziness of knowledge that the novel seems
to be positing? Or is the reverse the case--does the more that readers
know allow them to perceive what Bloom and Co. don't know, or get
wrong? Both, I think. As the P.P affair has funcitioned as a locus for
this thread, I'd like to add my support to the view that readers are, in
fact, missing out on something if they don't realize that the
newspapermen get the facts wrong. Thus an annotation which gives the
dates and central names is helpful in this kind of case. In other
situations though, a passing mention by Bloom of a 1904 Dublin
character may not warrant a mini-biography in an annotation. Such an
annotation might seem to suggest, however unwillingly, that this person
can, and should be 'known' to us readers. Joyce was remarkably aware,
it seems to me, that life in the modern city *does not allow us* to
'know' most of the objects, and I include people here, with which/whom
one comes into contact--this is basic to the Modernist aesthetic. Many
times a name is just a name in the crowd, so to speak. To compensate
for, say, Bloom's lack of knowledge here by trumping up our own
knowledge does a disservice to Joyce's text, and to Modernism, does it
not?

-----

31) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:11:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 06:30 PM 11/19/98 +0100, Fritz Senn wrote:
>> Should the note tell readers why Bantam Lyons raises his eyes at the
>>end of "Lotus Eaters" (5:531-41)? Should a reader be told simply to "watch
>>this space"? What can we consider was "known" at the time? and is the
>>default time 1904 or 1922? After all, Bloom doesn't even know a race is on
>>that day. Is he our model?
>I am dogmatically against any anticipatory gloss in this representative
>instance. With all potential knowledge of Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Irish
>history, theology etc etc. at one's ideal fingertips, no reader would know
>now the names of race horses. After all, Bloom himself does not know what
>is going on.

Right, and spoiling parts of the book as one crawls over it is a genuine
possibility. However, as you point out below, if the Gold Cup race is
discussed anywhere in a Ulysses commentary (and how could it not be?),
someone who wants to know about this race will be able to find the
information while reading this initial Gold Cup passage at the end of Lotus
Eaters. The only issues are (A) how many links would need to be followed to
get to a discussion of the race (two, three, four?), and (B) how much
*warning* would a reader have that proceeding to examine an account of the
race spoils some things that are in fact made clear by the book itself as
long as one keeps track of all the information that accumulates from
episode to episode?

>Of course in electronic, hyperlinked texts, all information is available
>around several corners, but at least not all notes have to be thrust on our
>attention. Eventually there is no such thing as tactful glossing; but at
>least let readers make an effort and - that's the overall rule - FIRST
>try to find out for themselves.

The commentator has a responsibility not to *force* information on people
that they do not want -- or would not want, if they were aware in advance of
the ways in which getting certain information at a certain point, while
reading forward from beginning to end, would affect their experience of the
book. If there is a basic note here in Lotus Eaters about the Gold Cup race,
it should be very general, without giving anything away. However, a link
should somehow be provided for the reader who (on a first or fortieth
reading of Ulysses) wants to go from the Lotus Eaters passage to a full
account of the race, and/or to other passages in Ulysses where the race
comes up. I guess that link needs to make clear that following the link
spoils a surprise, or reveals how this race "strand" unfolds in the rest of
the book, so that those who don't want a "spoiler" here in Lotus Eaters can
choose not to follow it.
But there are still problems. In a prior post on this thread, hypermedia was
under discussion and the wise point was made that once information is
provided, most people are going to tend to use it, no matter what the
intentions of the people providing the information. So this "spoilers" issue
really is a problematic area....

>But we would and will never reach an agreement. As long as we are aware of
>the pitfalls and complexities.

Amen to all that....

-----

32) From: Michael Barsanti
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:24:50 -0500 (EST)

At the risk of distracting a conversation that has been notably focused,
I'd like to introduce a few ideas that are somewhat perpendicular to the
thread:
1) How about the annotations supplied by the reader him- or her-self? I
believe Mike Groden's prototype includes functions whereby a reader can
make notes at certain points in the text--I think this is an essential
feature in encouraging the reader to engage with the book, and it seems
especially important in the case of *Ulysses.* As I recall, the prototype
shows how you can set a mark on the page & make notations in a box that
pops up on the screen. I like to make circles & boxes & significant
doodles in my paper books, and that would be my ideal preference for a CD
Rom version, but that doesn't appear to be possible at the moment.
2) one of the exciting features provided by CD-ROM games is the ability to
connect to the internet and play the game with another person. What about
a function whereby one could share annotations with other readers or
engage in discussions a la Michael Ditmore's DU-MOO (if that's the right
spelling?).
3) should we be concerned that a hypermedia Ulysses might give its reader
the mistaken impression that it (the cd rom or whatever) is a "closed
universe," that everything they need to consume the novel is there?
My general concern with, or rather hope for, the hypermedia versions (or
any other version, for that matter) is that they allow the reader to do
more than just *consume* the text of Ulysses in a highly informed way, but
also to practice a more engaged (and ideally communal?) way of reading.

-----

33) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:14:08 -0500
From: Christian David Hoard

Gregory {Greg} Downing wrote:
> All one can do as a teacher is try to formulate a perspective that is
> *broad*/general enough for all the jostling worldviews to be comfortable
> within it -- while hoping that those who really want *one* specific
> framework mandated to the *exclusion* of others do not get overly frustrated
> by the latitude a broad/inclusive framework provides.

I'm wondering how many of you on this list are (like me) undergrads? Not
many, I assume. The above point hits home with me. Perhaps it is a
problem merely at the University of Michigan, but I find that the
'broad/inclusive' approach to a text by a professor ends up watering
down either the text itself or the professor's own perspective. I can't
tell you how many times I've sat in class this semester, muttering to
myself, "Say something, will you?!" I've never read _U_ for a class,
though I did attend a few lectures on _U_ which were part of a modern
novel class. It was the same thing I see in far too many of my lit
courses: a professor refusing to 'say' anything about the text for fear
of opressing whatever 'natural response' his students might have had.
I, for one, would prefer to have a teacher express however he sees the
text, its themes, what passages are significant, what certain allusions
mean, etc., in as clear a way as he likes. If I can read 700 pages of
_U_, wouldn't you think that I can realize that its 'meaning' is
infinite? Moreover, implicit in any suggestion that a presentation of a
text should be broad is the idea that most students are sheep who will
simply take anything a professor says for gospel. I can see this as a
concern with perhaps other novels, but with _U_? I don't think so.
Anyway, I just thought I'd offer some 'audience' perspective. If I have
misunderstood or over-simplified your point, Greg, my apologies. I think
half of the reason I wrote this message was to vent about my other
professors...

-----

34) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:45:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 11:11 AM 11/23/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>I wonder if it
>might be useful to have two "doors" into information, one for first-time
>readers (students in classes, people reading the book on their own) and the
>other for other readers (more advanced students, people reading the book a
>second or subsequent time, critics and scholars). They wouldn't be labelled
>this crassly, but the point would be that one "door" would take you to
>information linked with pedagogy in mind: information would be linked in
>carefully controlled and labelled ways, the initial notes might be
>questions, etc., interpretation would be very, very carefully distinguished
>from commentary. The other door would lead to information that wouldn't
>need to be quite so concerned with these distinctions, since it can be
>assumed that the reader has experienced the whole book, is looking for
>analysis and interpretation, etc. Of course, both doors lead to the same
>information pools, but the link structure--at least at the upper levels as
>Greg described them--would be very different in the two cases.

This sounds very promising. Now that you put it this way, it's clearer that
a lot of the disagreements over what to provide and not provide on this
thread have really been about "first-time reader" vs. "long-time reader";
some posters have simply used "amateur" and "academic" as short-hand for
that. As you noted, I'd be very leery about links or portals that
essentially say "PhD required," i.e., defining who should use a resource by
some "lifestyle" qualification. But thinking about users of a commentary in
terms of their *relationship to the book* is completely appropriate and
functional. The related spoiler problem can be handled in this way too.
When people disagee it's often because they are talking about two different
things when they think they are talking about the same thing. On this
thread, people who think they are disagreeing are thinking, in some
instances, about first-time vs. long-time readers -- two groups with
different needs and perspectives. And there's no "apartheid" problem there--
first-timers can naturally evolve into long-timers if they choose to do so.

>I've tried to teach hypertext fiction (texts like Michael Joyce's
>"Afternoon," Carolyn Guyer's "Quibbling," Shelley Jackson's "Patchwork
>Girl") in three different classes recently (all graduate courses), and my
>experience has been quite the opposite. With respect, I would now say that
>you simply can't generalize about how people will react. Some of my
>students did indeed click everywhere they could, but others followed every
>default path, others sought out the map that shows the structure of links,
>others simply stopped. I think that you have to resist the assumption that
>all users will approach an electronic presentation of information in the
>same way.

That's really interesting. Hmmm. It means that the problems at hand require
the greatest care, since there are so many "total experiences" a commentary
can create, depending on how it's used. Of course, to an extent that's true
with a hard-copy commentary, which different people use differently. But
there is a difference of degree between a hard-copy and hypermedia commentary.

-----

35) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:18:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 05:28 PM 11/24/98 -0500, kambam@netrover.com wrote:
>Murray Gross wrote:
>> Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
>> choice is and should be with the reader. Not to worry, the text will not
>> be completely annotated. The greatness of Joyce as with Shakespeare,
>> Dante, or Proust is that the text in infinite. The more annotation the
>> greater and more profound will be the appreciation.
>It is of some concern to me, and to others, if I recall correctly Fritz
>Senn's post to this thread, that the very act of annotating such a text
>as Ulysses always threatens to corrupt one of the novel's central
>'themes', indeed one central to Ulysses's very modernist aesthetic: the
>textual--and thus de facto inexact--nature of historical, and other,
>knowledge. While Mike Groden has been careful to stress the unfinalized
>nature of all annotations (the need for allowing such annotations to
>*not* be final pronouncements on the given referent), it seems to me
>that any annotation risks just this dillemna. Let me state here that I
>am by no means a detractor of Ulysses in hypermedia--I have seen a few
>prototypes and am very excited by its possilibities, however...

This is what I've been referring to -- two sophisticated readers of the book
who have what sound like almost opposite takes on the most basic questions
of how to approach the book. Is it even possible to think about producing
*anything* that both would find satisfactory? It seems that any approach
that would minimally serve one person would annoy the other. Neither is
willing to let others be served according to their own lights, because that
is "not true to the book's spirit." I.e., what one can only see as
evaluative or interpretational *conclusions* about the book are driving
whether or not basic/initial commentary should occur at all, and how.

>Of course it can be argued the Ulysses has never offered a
>less-annotated reading experience since at least Stuart Gilbert.

Right, it does seem clear that Joyce had no aversion to commentary, whatever
angle *we* may decide to take on the text.

>Moreover, many scholars of Modernism have lamented that the movement's
>aesthetic has long ago been emptied of it's radical power. And yet is
>doesn't help matters, IMHO, that some readers still wish to equate Joyce
>with Dante, Shakespeare, or even Proust, as though all great writers are
>using the same aesthetic means to the same 'great' ends.

And as I've also said before, these mutually exclusive and polemical
approaches to interpretation are driven by mutually polemical cultural modes--
in this case, as so often, the polemics are presented as a battle of
anti-pomo ("timeless great books") vs. pro-pomo ("epistemic and historicist
problematization"). I'm actually not sure why the two are mutually exclusive
or why both can't be partly right -- nor do I see why a commentary on
Ulysses needs to be forced into taking one side on these debates, which will
be as dead in twenty or thirty years as any cultural polemics from decades
or centuries ago are today.
I'm also not sure why everyone is not free to read a clean text if s/he
wants it.

-----

36) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:34:15 -0500
From: Brian Hurley

Greg--as you seemed to have taken on the position of mediator for this
gloss thread--thanks, too, it's nice to have an active thread for a
change--perhaps you'd care to step down from your 'impartial' position
to consider the question I posed in my previous post. As you know, I
was careful to not to suggest an outright ban on annotations. I stated
that I have used Gifford and Thornton and that I appreiciated their
work. I also wrote that I believe some textual matters, such as P. Park
to almost *require* anotation.

Greg Downing wrote, referring to my post::
> Neither is
> willing to let others be served according to their own lights, because that
> is "not true to the book's spirit." I.e., what one can only see as
> evaluative or interpretational *conclusions* about the book are driving
> whether or not basic/initial commentary should occur at all, and how.

Greg, this is unfair. I did not suggest that the book should not be
annotated, nor that anyone should not be served according to their own
lights. What I *did* pose, and really, this was the point of the whole
post, was a question in theory; namely, how do annotations affect the
reading experience? I cited an example of the (hypothetical) annotation
of a 1904 Dublin personage the name of whom Bloom mentions in passing.
Greg, would such an instance *necessarily* warant an annotation, in your
point of view? I am not asking if one should *not provide* an
annotation--hell, provide as a long an annotation as possible--but
rather, might the annotation here effect how one as a reader experiences
Bloom's thought process and Ulysses in general..

Greg Downing wrote:
> And as I've also said before, these mutually exclusive and polemical
> approaches to interpretation are driven by mutually polemical cultural modes
> -- in this case, as so often, the polemics are presented as a battle of
> anti-pomo ("timeless great books") vs. pro-pomo ("epistemic and historicist
> problematization"). I'm actually not sure why the two are mutually exclusive
> or why both can't be partly right -- nor do I see why a commentary on
> Ulysses needs to be forced into taking one side on these debates, which will
> be as dead in twenty or thirty years as any cultural polemics from decades
> or centuries ago are today.
> I'm also not sure why everyone is not free to read a clean text if s/he
> wants it.

Quite a characterization! My statement about Dante and Shakespeare was
not intended to flag me as a member of the 'pro-pomo' camp. In fact I
have many problems with certain strains of postmodern thought. Yet this
is straying from the point. Are you suggesting that because one wishes
to question the impetus to lump great writers together one is ipso facto
a polemicist whose opinions on say, Ulysses, are thereby coloured by an
anti-Great Books 'agenda'? Sadly reductive If we concur, Greg, and
we do to a large degree, in wondering why "both sides can't be right" I
find it curious that you should suggest that questions of literary
history might be largely irrelevant to literary study and appreciation
because such questions are part of a "debate which will be dead in
twenty to thirty years." To state rather plaintively "I'm also not
sure why everyone is not free to read a clean text it s/he wants it" is
an attempt to carve out that coveted middle-ground between the "battle"
which you have staged. This is a man of straw--of course everyone
should be free to read a clean text *and/or* an infinitely annotated
one; it's one the best things about the hypermedia project. Let's be
productive. Greg, what are your feelings on annotation in general?
Always a good thing? Never a bad thing? The same whether one is
annotating Shakespeare or Joyce?

-----

37) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:00:14 -0800
From: Jack Kolb

While I agree with you in principle, Murray--the more information the
better--I think that Ulysses is a book that can be misread by the first
reader. My ex-wife (that's not the reason for our divorce {grin}) was one:
she was taught it in college by an hidebound idiot scholar who insisted that
students look up every reference. This destroyed the book for her forever:
it was forever simply an exercise in elaborate pedantry.
Ideally, as I tell even my non-majors, one should plunge into Ulysses like
diving into some new uncharted waters, recognizing that there will be
moments of panic, but eventually one will accustom oneself to the
surroundings, and ultimately the experience will be pleasurable. Admittedly
a crucial component of such a dive is at least one guide, whose been there
before: ideally one is part of a swimming party, all of whom can point out
the identifying features they come to recognize.
Sorry for that extended metaphor. My point is that almost all annotation
should at first come PERSONALLY, from a teacher (who need not be an
academic) who can respond to the individual students (even in a lecture
course). This simply can't be provided by a hypertext, for all its
potential value. If you want to read this as an attack upon the computer as
a educator, by all means do so {grin}.

-----

38) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:43:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 11:34 PM 11/24/98 -0500, Brian Hurley wrote:
>Greg--as you seemed to have taken on the position of mediator for this
>gloss thread

O no, please, not me! The only reason I was talking about polemical "sides"
is that my experience with "pedagogy," and with any kind of "cultural
discourse," tells me that before very long it almost encounters the
Kulturkampf. Unless one simply takes a "side" and has done with it,
mediality (not exactly the same as the most common sense of "mediation") is
the only other option....

>to consider the question I posed in my previous post. As you know, I
>was careful to not to suggest an outright ban on annotations. I stated
>that I have used Gifford and Thornton and that I appreciated their
>work. I also wrote that I believe some textual matters, such as P. Park
>to almost *require* anotation.

I don't have your post from last evening here at the office this morning,
but my recollection is that the part to which I (mercifully?) didn't reply
in detail was an extensive passage that began with a series of questions,
all of which seemed to call the propriety of commentary into question
because the idea of commentary seemed to involve an assumption of
authoritativeness that you found philosophically and potestatively
inappropropriate, i.e., commentary seemed to involve an assumption of
authority (authority to convey unproblematized information) that is
unsustainably veritisitic, and therefore simply a power-play on the part of
a would-be "authority." That's a common postmodern argument about (so to
speak) the arrogance of discourse, and I would certainly not say that it is
prima facie invalid.

>Greg Downing wrote, referring to my post::
>> Neither is
>> willing to let others be served according to their own lights, because that
>> is "not true to the book's spirit." I.e., what one can only see as
>> evaluative or interpretational *conclusions* about the book are driving
>> whether or not basic/initial commentary should occur at all, and how.
>Greg, this is unfair. I did not suggest that the book should not be
>annotated, nor that anyone should not be served according to their own
>lights.
OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll take you at your word, of course.
It just sounded to me as if you were disputing Murray Gross's idea (that
there should be no preset *limit* on the information provided, and that
readers would have to choose for themselves what to look at and what not to
look at it). So my inference was that you believed providing information
beyond a certain (perhaps quite modest) level would harm the reading
experience. IIRC, you did say that the idea of providing information cut
against the Ulyssean themes of "problems of knowledge and perception" --
and thus was not true to the spirit (sic!) of the book.
Sorry for any misunderstanding(s) on my part! I was rushing to catch up with
the day's e-mail, and didn't get to your post till well into the evening....

>What I *did* pose, and really, this was the point of the whole
>post, was a question in theory; namely, how do annotations affect the
>reading experience?
If a given user uses annotations (rather than the plain/clean reading-text
option that would be the "default" on a good hypermedia Ulysses), then the
annotations affect the reading experience. The reader is volunteering for
that by clicking into the annotations. Whichever annotations a given user
accesses on a given reading of the text absolutely affect that particular
reading experience. So the annotations would affect different readers
differently (or even the same reader differently on his/her subsequent
read-throughs), depending precisely on what was accessed and utilized.

>I cited an example of the (hypothetical) annotation
>of a 1904 Dublin personage the name of whom Bloom mentions in passing.
>Greg, would such an instance *necessarily* warant an annotation, in your
>point of view? I am not asking if one should *not provide* an
>annotation--hell, provide as a long an annotation as possible--but
>rather, might the annotation here effect how one as a reader experiences
>Bloom's thought process and Ulysses in general..

Sure, of course it would affect the reading-experience if one accessed that
annotation. But that's why initial-level annotation should be as bare-bones
as possible, with clear indications of what kinds of further information
users will get by following subsequent links to anything more detailed --
i.e., people should not have things sprung on them that they don't want. And
that's also why I think Mike Groden's Monday 11AM idea of a two-portal
commentary (first-time reader vs. longer-term reader) is a good idea.
Some readers (whether first-time or longer-term) might not be interested in
who Bloom is mentally alluding to at a given moment. No problem, keep
reading the text. Someone who wonders who that person is, or why Bloom is
thinking of that person, etc., should have options too. **Of course** it
affects the reading experience -- everything affects everything somehow (an
old Dean Martin song, I think).
Knowing how much of the background would be lost on a first-time non-Dublin
reader of 1918 or 1922, I imagine Joyce expected people to have that "lost
in the flux" experience that you rightly pointed out last night was very
likely part of the book's deliberate program. But I also imagine Joyce
expected people would also be able to make the allusions out with some
effort. Experience is big and complicated and messy -- but it also has
patterns and cohesions and meanings. Both things can be true at once (flux
*and* pattern) -- complexity includes both of them. This is yet another of
Joyce's many cultural vaticinations: the cultural polemics of the later 20th
cent. often revolve around the issue of whether there is "true/objective"
coherence in things or not, and that is precisely the issue that Joyce is
trying to thematize by writing a text where flux *and* pattern are both crucial.
A commentary should happily (joyously? joycily?) allow either -- by
providing on the one hand a plain text, basic initial annotation, and
portals for first-time redaers, and on the other hand some more detailed
commentary/background/analysis for those who feel they would like to have
their reading experience altered in that way. (Commentary as a mind-altering
experience.)

>My statement about Dante and Shakespeare was
>not intended to flag me as a member of the 'pro-pomo' camp. In fact I
>have many problems with certain strains of postmodern thought.

Again, sorry! I've read/heard similar points for twenty years now, since I
was an undergrad, so it's easy at this point to assume (sometimes wrongly)
that verbal overlaps with a well-known trend of thought might indicate an
affinity with or advocacy of that trend of thought.

>Yet this
>is straying from the point. Are you suggesting that because one wishes
>to question the impetus to lump great writers together

Maybe this is where I went astray! Though he will have to speak for hismelf
if he wishes, I didn't see Murray Gross as saying "great writers" were all
the same ("lump[ed] together"). Again, I don't have his post here at the
office (it's at home), but my strong impression was that he was making a
very specific and limited point in that passage about Dante et al. --
namely, that there is so much to say about Joyce we don't need to worry
about exhausting or ruining him by giving annotations. He wasn't saying all
great authors are alike in some general, unqualified way -- I thought he was
just saying that some significant writers who have been around for centuries
are far from exhausted, and we therefore shouldn't worry about exhausting
Joyce, who has been around so much shorter a time.
When you took Murray Gross to be "lump[ing] great writers together" in a
general way, and criticizing that, I have to say it sounded ever so much
like the argmuent that says (and it makes good points!) that the pre-1975
literary canon inappropriately seeks to preserve its darlings from any
dethroning or criticism by asserting that they are a special class of
authors who deal with timeless, eternal themes, and therefore can never be
outdated or pushed aside. I imagine you are also familiar with how that
argument runs. If I misconstrued you because of your verbal similarities to
that argument, my sincerest apologies!

>one is ipso facto
>a polemicist whose opinions on say, Ulysses, are thereby coloured by an
>anti-Great Books 'agenda'? Sadly reductive If we concur, Greg, and
>we do to a large degree, in wondering why "both sides can't be right" I
>find it curious that you should suggest that questions of literary
>history might be largely irrelevant to literary study and appreciation
>because such questions are part of a "debate which will be dead in
>twenty to thirty years."

I didn't suggest that questions of literary or cultural history are
irrelevant; in fact, annotations that provide information give fodder for
solid discussions of literary texts in concrete, contextualized,
historicized ways -- as I think both you and I would support.
But I do think the most helpful and longest-lived approach to all this would
start from a position that sees all the off-the-shelf modes of the present
as having *some* valid points to make, rather than privileging one current
mode of historicization at the expense of another, as if we were baseball
fans rooting for "our team" in the cultural playoffs.

>To state rather plaintively "I'm also not
>sure why everyone is not free to read a clean text it s/he wants it" is
>an attempt to carve out that coveted middle-ground between the "battle"
>which you have staged. This is a man of straw--of course everyone
>should be free to read a clean text *and/or* an infinitely annotated
>one; it's one the best things about the hypermedia project. Let's be
>productive. Greg, what are your feelings on annotation in general?
>Always a good thing? Never a bad thing? The same whether one is
>annotating Shakespeare or Joyce?

Well, I've tried to answer all of your message in some detail (hope I'm not
boring the rest of the list too much). I didn't want you to think that I was
clipping and ignoring parts of your message that I didn't feel like
answering or found inconvenient. But this last bit of your message is so
broad in its scope that I'll have to stop for now, and see what you or
others have to say on this or related topics before figuring out what else
might usefully (?) be said along these lines. I'm exhauted, and now I have
to get to my office work.

-----

39) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:52:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 01:00 AM 11/25/98 -0800, Jack Kolb wrote:
>>...almost all annotation
>should at first come PERSONALLY, from a teacher (who need not be an
>academic) who can respond to the individual students (even in a lecture
>course). This simply can't be provided by a hypertext, for all its
>potential value. If you want to read this as an attack upon the computer as
>a educator, by all means do so {grin}.

Right -- and one of the most "fun" aspects of experiencing Ul. as student or
teacher is when you discover new things, on the fly, as a result of what
someone else says, or because the classroom reading experience (i.e., the
particular sequence of passages examined in the classroom) brings out
something that no prior reading experience brought out.
But this brings up an interesting pedagogical question, related I think to
Mike Groden's Monday ideas on the topic of what serves first-time readers
and what serves long-term readers (i.e., two alternate portals to
information?). Namely:
How would a hypermedia edition/commentary be used in connection with, or not in connection with, a classroom discussion of Ulysses? And in either case, why?

-----

40) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:19:21 -0800
From: Jack Kolb

I haven't really followed this discussion in detail (I'm in the last throes
of moving, which means, for example, that most of my Joyce books need to
unpacked). But as an editor I would offer the following comments:
1. I am utterly opposed to an annotated edition which attempts to
"interpret" the text. Such a version would be historically mired in
whatever--and however brilliant or "definitive"--reading were offered. I
don't know of any editor who would argue otherwise. Granted, it's often
difficult to separate "descriptive" from "interpretative" notes. It's
probably impossible to generalize about the policy.
2. Since it is a matter of individual cases, let's take the "Throwaway"
reference in "Lotos-Eaters." I don't think Gifford's annotation (p. 98) of
5.532 is inappropriate (providing perhaps a bit more than any reader might
want to know about the Gold Cup race). His following annotation to 5.534:
{throw it away} IS, in my view, inappropriate: "See preceding note. The
point is that Bloom has just unwittingly given a tip on the Gold Cup race."
Not only is this inaccurate or inadequate--only in the construction of
Bantam Lyons' mind has Bloom has "given a tip" about the race--but it's
interpretative. Better, in an ideal hypertext edition, to provide pointers
to the many allusions to "Throwaway" in the text. Let the information about
the race stand as the fact; let the reader interpret.
I admit this is a minimalist approach, but anything else in an annotated
edition is patronizing to any potential reader.

-----

41) From: Arwin van Arum
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:26:14 +0100

Greg wrote:
>This is what I've been referring to -- two sophisticated readers of the
book
>who have what sound like almost opposite takes on the most basic questions
>of how to approach the book. Is it even possible to think about producing
>*anything* that both would find satisfactory? It seems that any approach
>that would minimally serve one person would annoy the other. Neither is
>willing to let others be served according to their own lights, because
that
>is "not true to the book's spirit." I.e., what one can only see as
>evaluative or interpretational *conclusions* about the book are driving
>whether or not basic/initial commentary should occur at all, and how.

I think that the obvious thing to do in hypermedia is to objectively offer
several different points of view at the same time, and leave the reader to
choose which, or even if at all, he wants to read any of them. That's the
great thing about hypermedia - you can read what you want to read. Ideally,
your hypertext consists of loose paragraphs, and the reader decides which
route to take through them.

>>Of course it can be argued the Ulysses has never offered a
>>less-annotated reading experience since at least Stuart Gilbert.
>Right, it does seem clear that Joyce had no aversion to commentary, whatever
>angle *we* may decide to take on the text.

Obviously. Why else try so hard to work in all those references? I think
that with Joyce the situation is very easy - he clearly intended to produce
multiple layers of comprehension, accessible to multiple levels of
readership.
And with all the rest you write, I most heartily agree. Our worries are
timebound, where literature, even in hypertext, should be to at least some
extent timeless. By carefully cataloguing our collective accumulative
knowledge about Joyce's work, whatever previous assumption about his work
this confirms or disproves, we will create something current and future
scholars can build on. And by giving them a choice in what to read, we give
them all opportunity to be effective and selective, as well as inclusive or
exclusive.

-----

42) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:58:08 -0500
From: Michael Groden

A cluster of posts dealt with whether we should annotate everything we know.

Greg Downing:
>(1) How many particulars in Ulysses have little significance? You leave an
>escape hatch by including "known." Of course no one would write a note or
>comment saying "who knows what this means? nothing as far as anyone knows."
>Silence makes perfectly clear that nothing worth saying is currently known
>(to the commentator(s)) about a given detail. (To be clear, let's make
>explicit that this is not the same as saying "people argue about which
>possible significance(s) are valid, or more valid than others" --
>commentaries do *that* all the time.) However, *many* details in Ulysses
>seem to be chosen for their cluster of possible resonances.

Murray Gross:
>There seems to be a polarity of "us vs. the reader". It's shocking enough
>that academics feel they want to withhold information from their
>students and not make it too easy for them
>Let there be NO limit on what we can reference as we read the text. The
>choice is and should be with the reader.

Brian Hurley:
>1. Is there really no sense in which too much annotation may work
>against the spirit of Ulysses, its themes, its take on history,
>knowledge, and the aesthetic? Is it a question of censorship, or of
>sensitivity to literary history? Is there not the possibilty that a
>reader of an infinitely annotated (to take the limit-case) edition of
>Ulysses might end up with more knowledge (albeit of the mediated,
>textual kind) of 1904 Dublin than was possible for even the most
>historically-accute resident of 1904 Dublin, of 1922 Dublin? More
>knowledge than that possessed by Joyce? And if so, would not this
>reader gain a kind of position vis a vis Ulysses that might efface the
>very point about the gaps and haziness of knowledge that the novel seems
>to be positing? Or is the reverse the case--does the more that readers
>know allow them to perceive what Bloom and Co. don't know, or get
>wrong? Both, I think.
Brian Hurley:
>Greg, what are your feelings on annotation in general?
>Always a good thing? Never a bad thing? The same whether one is
>annotating Shakespeare or Joyce?

These questions go far beyond Ulysses, but they are very important ones.
For my own selfish purposes, I'm delighted that there is a kind of
"town"-"gown" (or whatever) division that has opened up somewhat, because
one of the goals we decided on early on for the hypermedia Ulysses project
was that it would try to reach and serve readers at all levels from
beginners to scholars, both in and out of organized classrooms. _We_ have
to keep thinking about all the different possible groups of readers, but of
course the readers will look to see whether their own needs are being met
without caring about any kind of overarching view. So the people who are
speaking from those perspectives here are providing a very good sense of
what some of the different groups (or at least particular people in those
groups) want and need.
Of course, also, we are talking in the abstract, since most of you
haven't seen what we are trying to do in the project, but I hope that those
of you who have been expressing opinions will help us by looking at
versions of the hypermedia project as they develop and let us know what is
working and what isn't. Your sense of what can and can't be done, and what
should and shouldn't be done, will probably change once you see what the
thing actually looks like and how it is structured. (And, of course, how it
is structured will be affected by the things you are saying in these posts.)
The opinions I've quoted here seem to me to strike at the heart of the
humanities and humanistic education. My instincts in this debate are all on
the side of providing everything, or at least all you can. The trick, as
has been said several times already, is to organize the information in a
way that is useful, unobtrusive, and so clearly structured that a user will
be able to find what s/he wants and not be bothered by the rest. (There
will, of course, be limits on what we present; it won't be possible to
present everything. But what is left out will be a matter more of
permission beyond denied--almost every piece of published criticism and
scholarship on Ulysses is still in copyright, and people or publishers who
control the rights to materials might not let us use them--or charges for
permissions being beyond our budget, or our own energy running out than of
a decision to leave out information.)
My first reaction to Brian Hurley's question was to wonder if he
would suggest that libraries should curtail what they purchase so that
readers don't learn too much. The problem can't be that there is too much
that we can learn. My second thought was to recall T.S. Eliot's statement
in "Tradition and the Individual Talent": "Someone said, 'The dead writers
are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.' Precisely,
and they are that which we know." Placed alongside Richard Ellmann's
opening line in his biography of Joyce, "We are still learning to be James
Joyce's contemporaries, to understand our interpreter." These two
statements seem to me to get close to the heart of why we keep reading and
studying books like Ulysses, and why worries like Brian's have to affect,
deeply, the way we go about organizing the materials we use in a
hypermedia project but why they can't affect the basic decision to include
or not include material. Of course, we know more than Bloom or a 1904 or
1922 Dubliner or Joyce--we know Ulysses, we know Finnegans Wake, we know
postmodern lit., Freud, Derrida, Foucault, Kenner, etc. etc. ("We" and
"know" subject to as many qualifications as you want.) What else is
liberal-arts education for but to make sure that we know more? Of course,
crucially, we also know less: we don't know about the Phoenix Park murders
as if they happened yesterday, etc. etc. Many of the posts about how to
provide contexts and what contexts to provide have tried to negotiate
between the different degrees of knowledge and ignorance we each bring to a
book like Ulysses, or to Shakespeare. (To answer the question that Brian
asked of Greg Downing, I don't think the issue changes with the author or
text.) That seems to me to be the question, not whether we might be
offering too much.
In graduate school my Chaucer teacher was one of those so-called
"Robertsonians" (he was Robertson himself, actually) who insisted that
nothing could be said about Chaucer that wouldn't be known to a
14th-century reader. With Ulysses, yes, Joyce knew that his audience would
never know everything that is in the book, and yes we can't pretend that we
ever will, hypermedia Ulysses or not. If Ellmann is even remotely accurate,
we keep reading Ulysses precisely because we will never "understand our
interpreter." _That_ is what Joyce pulled off, not the puzzles and games,
and that is why Ulysses lasts.

Brian Hurley:
>Joyce was remarkably aware,
>it seems to me, that life in the modern city *does not allow us* to
>'know' most of the objects, and I include people here, with which/whom
>one comes into contact--this is basic to the Modernist aesthetic. Many
>times a name is just a name in the crowd, so to speak.

Yes, Ulysses is full of names in the crowd, one of which is M'Intosh, a
name that gets connected to a person by bizarre (linked) details. Frank
Kermode, in _The Genesis of Secrecy_ from the late 1970s, asked why critics
seem to spend so much time trying to make some sense out of M'Intosh rather
than admitting that it doesn't make sense. There are names in the crowd,
and there are names. Again, who decides what matters, and what doesn't?

-----

43) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:27:16 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Some responses to this thread asked specific questions about a hypermedia
Ulysses, or made specific suggestions. Here are thoughts about some of
these:

Frank Dauenhauer:
>Just a suggestion, with an eye toward lessening the potential for users'
>confusion with "layered" help: let the reader of the hypertext edition of
>Ulysses "log in" to the book at any of a number of levels, which h/she can
>change instantly by clicking on a numbered icon: e.g.,
>
>Level Kind of help provided
>===== ===================
> 0 - None. Read the book with no intervention
> 1 - First-time reader/rank beginner. Basic help (definitions of
>terms, etc.)
> 2 - Second-time reader. More in-depth help
> 3 - Advanced beginner (where I think I would spend most of my time)
> . . . (You get the idea)
> 9 - Doctoral candidate, just verifying what is probably already
>known

Categories like this might be quite useful. But the computer screen is
visual as much as verbal, and a numbered list sounds a lot like an outline
on a page. I'd rather think of something like color-codings or some other
visual rather than numerical system. I'd prefer to stay away from any
system that lets you rate yourself, or be rated ("only" a 3; a _real_
reader of Ulysses can handle 9, etc.). If we are going to take full
advantage of the computer, we have to learn how it can serve needs that we
perceive and at the same time help us out of certain dilemmas that print
communication forced on us.

John Paul Fullerton:
>> One of the crucial features of my hypermedia presentation is a clean,
>> uncontaminated text of Ulysses -- no links, no toolbar, just the words.
>It seems that in even the "simplest" view, availability of "word
>detective" consulting could be useful.

By "clean, uncontaminated text," I meant that what you would see on the
screen is the text alone with no apparatus, buttons, toolbar, or things
like that. All these things, and everything behind them, would always be
"there," just not visible until you, as user, called them up. This would
also be true of all kinds of search mechanisms: always "there," but not
visible until you want them.

also John Paul Fullerton:
>How about a map of the action? (Like a game, map of Dublin, we see
>locations where action takes place.)
>Animate movement through the map/action. (User may observe movement
>through the map.)
>Allow clicking on a section of the map for time/action/context info.

Yes, definitely. Multimedia cries out for maps and all kinds of visual and
audio accompaniment to the text, and the map becomes one way of orienting
yourself or navigating through the text.

Mike Barsanti:
>1) How about the annotations supplied by the reader him- or her-self? I
>believe Mike Groden's prototype includes functions whereby a reader can
>make notes at certain points in the text--I think this is an essential
>feature in encouraging the reader to engage with the book, and it seems
>especially important in the case of *Ulysses.* As I recall, the prototype
>shows how you can set a mark on the page & make notations in a box that
>pops up on the screen. I like to make circles & boxes & significant
>doodles in my paper books, and that would be my ideal preference for a CD
>Rom version, but that doesn't appear to be possible at the moment.

Programs like PowerPoint let you add shapes of many kinds (customized as
well as supplied ones) to your slides, and you can add "handwritten" notes
to the slide slow while you are presenting it. I don't think that personal
notes will have to be limited to typed words.

also Mike Barsanti:
>2) one of the exciting features provided by CD-ROM games is the ability to
>connect to the internet and play the game with another person. What about
>a function whereby one could share annotations with other readers or
>engage in discussions a la Michael Ditmore's DU-MOO (if that's the right
>spelling?).

A MOO is one thing: it's a live real-time discussion. Somewhat separate is
a place for notetaking that is on the Web, and users can look at
annotations that are there, post new ones, etc. That will be part of the
Web section of the hypermedia Ulysses (we're anticipating that most of the
project will be on a disc such as a CD-ROM or DVD but that a small but
sizeable part will be on the Web). There could also be a separate Web page
for notes from a smaller group, such as an individual class.

three points from Jack Kolb:
>My point is that almost all annotation
>should at first come PERSONALLY, from a teacher (who need not be an
>academic) who can respond to the individual students (even in a lecture
>course). This simply can't be provided by a hypertext, for all its
>potential value. If you want to read this as an attack upon the computer as
>a educator, by all means do so {grin}.

>I am utterly opposed to an annotated edition which attempts to
>"interpret" the text. Such a version would be historically mired in
>whatever--and however brilliant or "definitive"--reading were offered. I
>don't know of any editor who would argue otherwise. Granted, it's often
>difficult to separate "descriptive" from "interpretative" notes. It's
>probably impossible to generalize about the policy.

>I admit this is a minimalist approach, but anything else in an annotated
>edition is patronizing to any potential reader.

No, hypertext can't replace a teacher, and shouldn't. Then again, not every
reader of Ulysses is studying with a teacher, or should be. What a
hypertext can provide is a great deal of opinions, interpretations,
analyses for the user to look at. The hypertext is going to be historically
mired whatever we do, and however well we do. If we clearly separate
interpretation from annotation, to the extent that this is possible, and if
we present many interpretations and not our own (or not my own), then
interpretation is contextualized, historicized, qualified. Done this way,
how is it patronizing? The reader's own judgment, or a teacher's aid, would
always be needed to assess and evaluate the interpretations. (Conversely,
if the hypertext tried to present itself as an authoritative
interpretation, it should be immediately and utterly condemned.)

-----

44) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:33:39 -0500
From: Brian Hurley

I'd like to thank Mike Groden for providing such personable and helpful
rejoinders to this thread. Most recently he wrote:

>. . . The opinions I've quoted here seem to me to strike at the heart of the humanities and
> humanistic education. . . . [Letter 42] Again, who decides what matters, and what doesn't? . . .

In response, I'd like to straighten out my view in light of the above.
1). I am not in support of the suppression of knowledge. To paraphase
a certain world leader, "I did not have a relationship with that point,
'the suppression of knowledge'." (sorry, did that work?) Libraries
should keep on growing, everyone should keep on reading and reading. I
*am* very interested in literary history, and in my reading of modernist
texts and the secondary literature I typically find myself drawn (by far
not exclusively) to contextual readings and others which read a text in
relation to history and to the history of ideas. This is of course one
approach to literary study and I would never entirely discount other
approaches and certainly never would I suppress them. However,
historicist criticism is in a sense problematically exclusive. In its
most dogmatic form it privileges the past and frowns upon opinion that
is ungrounded in history (Mike Groden's scary 'Robertson method'). Thus
it is easy to see how anyone who vouches for an historical approach can
be seen as a kind of 'elitist', safely guarding their 'cultural capital'
which allows them to read the text the 'right' way, denying comment to
those, say non-literature specialists, who wish to comment on the novel
by talking about what the novel 'means to them' or how it relates to
living in Los Angeles in 1998--both fully waranted points of view. In
such a project as Ulysses in hypermedia it is, as Mike Groden points
out, *crucial* that one approach (say, a variant of historicism) doesn't
colour the whole project and effect what material goes in and what stays
out.
2). In my original contribution to this thread I merely wondered, quite
openly and without much forethought, *how* Ulysses in 1998, with such
prodigious scholarship at our fingertips, is effected *merely by the
tools with which it is read*, to say nothing of the temporal distance
between its readers and 1904/22. I know as well as anyone that this
question is naive and really unanswerable. We can't turn back time or
empty our minds of the knowledge we have accumulated. (Though *Eliot*
may have wished history ended sometime in the seventeenth century even
as he was [I suppose] grateful for having been exposed to such post-17c
minds as James Frazer and F.H. Bradley). Interestingly, though, Eliot's
response to his historical moment was to evade it. It can be (and has
been) convincingly argued that _The Waste Land_, to take only the most
obvious, reflects life as Eliot saw it even as Eliot himself totally
disaproved of it. But Joyce didn't hate his historical moment as much
as his modernist counterpart did. We keep on reading Joyce, for one,
because he gives us such a lovingly rendered slice of this life. Garry
Leonard has written about how for Joyce it was "the moment", as opposed
to the nightmare of history, in Leonard's formulation, that counted.
Far from evading the moment (the phenomenological moment that may, in
special cases, be an 'epiphany'), Joyce wanted to celebrate it. So when
I asked whether clicking to an annotation might change how these moments
are experienced by us readers it was not a proscriptive comment on
annotation _qua_ annotation. Mike Groden is right to ask "who decides
matters, and who doesn't?". Provide annotations where we can. But it is
surely not ridiculous to think about how these moments, and I am not
speaking of the recognized epiphanies as such, might be altered,
positively or negatively or not at all, by an annotation. There is no
pure Ur reading to preserve, at least I'm not arguing that (even if I
believe, as one interested in literary history, that it is worth knowing
what a 'modernist' reading of a book like Ulysses might be). But I
think it productive to be an active reader, to always want to understand
as best we can *how* words on a page make you feel and how other words
(an annotation?) might contribute to that feeling. Any thoughts?

-----

45) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 08:17:51 -0600
From: Rod Anderson

Arwin wrote:
>I think that the obvious thing to do in hypermedia is to objectively offer
>several different points of view at the same time, and leave the reader to
>choose which, or even if at all, he wants to read any of them. That's the
>great thing about hypermedia - you can read what you want to read. Ideally,
>your hypertext consists of loose paragraphs, and the reader decides which
>route to take through them.

Even more ideally, the loose paragraphs associated with a common viewpoint
can be linked with one another, so that the reader can follow a single
viewpoint throughout the text, if he or she so desires. For example, one
may want to read _U_ following only mahan's viewpoint (!?!). If so, the
reader enables an option in which only those comments associated with mahan
appear.

Perhaps the reader may also enable a conflicting viewpoint at the same time to compare and contrast the comments throughout the text.

-----

46) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 14:04:35 -0800
From: Jack Kolb

I was just looking back over some of the threads of this discussion. Again,
here's the passage in question:

>>(Gabler ed., 7:638-43) [in letter 4]

Leaving aside all other matters--and I would essentially (though this
oversimplifies a lot) suggest that one can here offer all the historical
information necessary to suggest that Crawford is wrong, without--as Gifford
does--stating such)--I'd simply mention that almost all of my students need
to know what Gallaher did, and why Crawford considered it such a coup. I
explain it in class, but I don't think it would be inappropriate as an
annotation.

-----

47) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:00:32 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Mike Groden raises a question about the appropriateness of the evaluative
remarks in Kiberd's annotation on Groden's chosen passage from Aeolus. After
making a couple of unobjectionable historical remarks about the episode, Kiberd
says:
"Much of the chapter criticizes the revivalist notion that all great
deeds were done in the past. To Joyce this idealization of the past was a thin
cover-up for the mediocrity of the present."

It is certainly true that this is a judgement, but in
contradistinction to what ? Something true? Objective ? Informative ? Factual
? Can we really take such distinctions serously? And, above all, what is it,
exactly, that is being annotated ? Can we classify it? A word, a paragraph, a
chapter as a whole, the work of JJ as a whole ? I think not.

What strikes me about Kiberd's remarks are:
a) he's right; and
b) it is perfectly obvious that he is making a
judgement, but
c) it is NOT obvious that he is more reliable ( that
is, that he has made the most appropriate selection from among the various things
that he might possibly have decided to say, assuming he knew a good deal more
than he chose to say) in his factual remarks than in his judgements.

My point is the following: as soon as Kiberd makes a general point about
the chapter as a whole, and then about JJ's work as a whole, his comment is
classified as "evaluative", and therefore ruled out of bounds. But the issue is
not whether it is evaluative, but whether he is reliable. For at what point (along
the continuum outlined at the top of this post,) does the judgement about
something inevitably become an "evaluation" ? Is it at the level of the "motif"
? Of the chapter as a whole? somewhere in between ? Or where ? Obviously there
is no answer to this.

To attempt to be clear about this: I would warn against being too
complacent about
a) our capacity to differentiate between "evaluation" and
"information", and
b) our tendency to view the latter as being inherently more
reliable than the former.

We are simply unwilling (for reasons it would be worth looking into) to
trust an annotator to depend directly on his reading of the text in hand, rather
than on some independent source. But if an annotator has shown himself to be
reliable, why should we not, in principle, be prepared to accept his reading of
a chapter or of the book as a whole? By the same token, if she has NOT done so,
why should we accept her account of the "facts" ? (It is a matter of common
experience that it is far easier to attack someone's facts than it is to attack
their judgements.)
Literature itself, and certainly the work of JJ, is crammed with
such passages from fact to evaluation; perhaps in some sense they are what it is
all about. Why then should we wish to produce a set of purged, antiseptic
"annotations", pure of all commentary? What a bloodless drag! Pass the Phone
Book ! Tell us what you think is the case without worrying too much whether you
are stepping over someone's imaginary line. Be assured that we will be quite
able to distinguish between your quirky ideas and the "facts". If we can't, we
should learn to read, for that's what reading is, and if you can't convince us
that you're reliable and worth reading, we simply won't read you, and no harm
will be done.

-----

48) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:12:48 +1300
From: Tim Lovell-Smith

>>Mr O'Madden Burke said. Fitzharris, He has that cabman's
>>shelter, they say, down there at Butt bridge. Holohan told me. You know
>>Holohan? (Gabler ed., 7:638-43)

49) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:47:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 01:19 PM 11/25/98 -0800, Jack Kolb wrote:
>1. I am utterly opposed to an annotated edition which attempts to
>"interpret" the text. Such a version would be historically mired in
>whatever--and however brilliant or "definitive"--reading were offered. I
>don't know of any editor who would argue otherwise. Granted, it's often
>difficult to separate "descriptive" from "interpretative" notes.

I completely agree with you about the paramount importance of keeping the
annotational and evaluative aspects of literary response as clearly
separated as possible. (Meanwhile, because all annotation involves
selection, choices, priorities, etc., we have to ackowledge that it is
impossible to create an utterly "evaluation-free zone." It's probably even
impossible to get down to the perhaps minimal level of "parts per billion"
or "parts per trillion" of evaluation somehow implicit in the most basically
annotational annotations.) All of us who read need to keep the nonidentity
of the descriptive and evaluative functions as distinct as possible, while
simultaneously being honest with ourselves about the fact that all thought
and discourse occurs within complexly interwoven conceptual and cultural
webs whose existence is the result of people's cumulative conceptual and
cultural activity. So talking about absolutes or walls of separation here is
probably methodologically unfeasible, and probably also a function of not
taking the contingency and complexity of cultural and conceptual activity as
strictly into account as I imagine we should. But clearly you do recognize
the issue as a problem, functionally, when you say:

>It's probably impossible to generalize about the policy.
>2. Since it is a matter of individual cases, let's take the "Throwaway"
>reference in "Lotos-Eaters." I don't think Gifford's annotation (p. 98) of
>5.532 is inappropriate (providing perhaps a bit more than any reader might
>want to know about the Gold Cup race). His following annotation to 5.534:
>{throw it away} IS, in my view, inappropriate: "See preceding note. The
>point is that Bloom has just unwittingly given a tip on the Gold Cup race."
>Not only is this inaccurate or inadequate--only in the construction of
>Bantam Lyons' mind has Bloom has "given a tip" about the race--but it's
>interpretative. Better, in an ideal hypertext edition, to provide pointers
>to the many allusions to "Throwaway" in the text. Let the information about
>the race stand as the fact; let the reader interpret.

No argument from me! Gifford's note is certainly an odd way of discussing
what's happening here. Accepting that Gifford does want to give the game
away at this point (and you and I might question that...), why does he
choose wording that focuses on Bloom rather than Lyons?
This brings out an important point: Yes, it's probably impossible to
formulate generalized rules about keeping description and evaluation
absolutely separate. However, all annotations would benefit from high
sensitivity to wording, and avoidance of inaccurate or inappropriate
implications, or false impressions.

>I admit this is a minimalist approach, but anything else in an annotated
>edition is patronizing to any potential reader.

You say above that an annotated edition should avoid interpretation. Does
this mean that you disapprove of traditional "hard-copy" annotated editions
that also have critical material included, after the edition and
annotations? (There are many examples of this format, several of them in the
Joyce literature.) Or do the two things contaminate each other, as certain
flavors are said to do, i.e., don't drink wine x with food y? Does one-stop
shopping -- for some non-authoritative, non-exhaustive commentary as well as
some non-authoritative, non-exhaustive analysis, in one
CDROM/DVD/website/etc. -- constitute an outrage? If so, why?

-----

50) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 07:12:36 -0800
From: Jack Kolb

>No, hypertext can't replace a teacher, and shouldn't. Then again, not every
>reader of Ulysses is studying with a teacher, or should be. What a
>hypertext can provide is a great deal of opinions, interpretations,
>analyses for the user to look at. The hypertext is going to be historically
>mired whatever we do, and however well we do. If we clearly separate
>interpretation from annotation, to the extent that this is possible, and if
>we present many interpretations and not our own (or not my own), then
>interpretation is contextualized, historicized, qualified. Done this way,
>how is it patronizing? The reader's own judgment, or a teacher's aid, would
>always be needed to assess and evaluate the interpretations. (Conversely,
>if the hypertext tried to present itself as an authoritative
>interpretation, it should be immediately and utterly condemned.)

I'm very grateful for Michael's thoughtful and always worthy posts on this
continuing issue. As I know we all agree, this is a complex problem: I
would stress that editorial decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Specifically, in response to the above: I think any interpretation ought to
make clear its context (and then, I agree, it isn't patronizing).
One thinks of the 19th century variorum editions of Shakespeare, which
attempt to print substantial excepts from almost every piece of criticism
pertinent to the line; all were clearly labelled by author. This of course
was undertaken at a time when criticism had not become the Hydra-like
monster it is today.
Today, it seems to me particularly important to free the reader from
preconceptions in reading such works as Ulysses. Of course a hypertext
might include criticism, but in fact I'd prefer an edition free from such.
Certainly there's enough "factual" annotative information to occupy a full
CD-ROM.
The criticism should come separately. And here the issue of authority comes
to bear. The virtue and the horror of the internet is that is offers a
completely promiscuous menu of information and misinformation. I would not
have it changed. But a CD-ROM of criticism from Michael Groden and various
other Joyce scholars ought to have some authority. The selection ought NOT
to be promiscuous.

-----

51) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 18:44:19 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Our discussion has been, so far, quasi-technical/utilitarian in
character: what would be the most useful kinds of annotation for this or that kind
of reader, and what kinds of levels of access do we want to provide, and so forth.
These are, in a sense, engineering questions, the very sort of thing that Bloom would
have found absorbing.
But is there, perhaps, also a kind of "political economy" at work here;
a groundwork of assumptions that lead us (in the usual manner of the ideological) to
take up a number of unquestionable, taken-for-granted positions?
Again and again, in this copious and fascinating thread, we come
across the urgently felt need to make very clear when we are evaluating and when we
are informing. The liberal position is that since we cannot make a sharp
distinction between the two we should make a sharp distinction between the two, and
separate them onto different hypertext levels. The conservative position is that
evaluation should be banished altogether, as being bad for the soul of the naive
reader, who is likely to be robbed of his special god-given right to his special
readerly pleasures.
Neither position works, of course. The liberal position is
self-contradictory, in that though one may segregate inputs, one cannot segregate
the resulting jumble of info-judgements once they are lodged in the mind. The
conservative position doesn't work because the choice of facts is a matter of
judgement.
One thing, for example, that we haven't thought much about as we try
to theorize annotation is the question of intellectual property-rights. Perhaps
lying behind the very strong intuitions that so many have expressed ("no editor
that I know would...." and so forth) about the vital importance of distinguishing
between the evaluative and the informative, is that the former might be thought of
as a kind of intellectual property, whereas the latter is less plausibly "ownable".
The latter therefore is "safe", verifiable, objective, scientific.
One might perhaps want to be credited with having discovered a piece of information,
but one scarcely has a patent on it The same cannot be said so readily with respect
to critical views which have more in common with the kind of "ownership" that an
author has with respect to his "creations".
I'm not suggesting that it literally comes down to property-rights
per se, since we are, almost all of us, much too poor to actually play that game of
suit and counter-suit. Rather, our ideological intuitions are informed by that
"bourgeois" regime, (as distinct, for example, from the "amateur" regime, likely
to disregard such distinctions, that would govern in a courtly society.)
If I'm right about this, then I suppose there is nothing much to be
done. The ideological always trumps the rational in such matters.

-----

52) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 14:32:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 12:25 AM 11/26/98 +0100, you [Arwin van Arum] wrote:
>I think that the obvious thing to do in hypermedia is to objectively offer
>several different points of view at the same time, and leave the reader to
>choose which, or even if at all, he wants to read any of them. That's the
>great thing about hypermedia - you can read what you want to read.

Right. And that also means any *evaluative* material, no matter how many
different conflicting or complementary options are included, should be
presented as discretely as possible from the basic, descriptive
annotation/commentary. (That's "discretely," but maybe I mean "discreetly" too.)

>By carefully cataloguing our collective accumulative
>knowledge about Joyce's work, whatever previous assumption about his work
>this confirms or disproves, we will create something current and future
>scholars can build on.

Right. Each generation has to translate for itself, each generation has to
write literature for itself, each generation has to philosophize for itself,
and each generation has to annotate and analyze for itself. It's all part of
an ongoing (but not "unidirectional") process. I suppose it's important to
keep pointing out that all assertions about Ulysses -- and all assertions
about anything -- are limited, partial, imperfect, subject to inevitable
correction. Ineluctable modifiability of the glossable. It's important to
keep making this point ("it's all imperfect/temporary") as explicitly and
insistently as possible, because that's the only thing that furnishes even
limited inoculation against the "gotcha" bug, which bites in something like
the following fashion: "You're making a claim that doesn't adequately
acknowledge the pervasiveness of epistemic imperfection, so I hereby
rhetorically demonstrate my own lesser degree of such imperfection by
pointing that out -- without having to take a specific position on anything
myself that I might be wrong about, whatever "wrong" is...."

>And by giving them a choice in what to read, we give them all
>opportunity to be effective and selective, as well as inclusive
>or exclusive.

Right. A convenient collection of various kinds of materials and resources
(annotations for first-time readers, more detailed annotations and
background material, various kinds of tools, various kinds of analytical or
critical or theoretical materials, etc.) in various areas of a multi-purpose
document allows *various* people to range as widely or as narrowly as they
wish. (And n.b.: The latter (narrower) kinds of options are in no way
necessarily "inferior" to broader or wider-ranging interests or perspectives.)

-----

53) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:06:21 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Ross Chambers wrote:
>The Voyager CD-Rom of Shakespeare's Scottish Play may be worth checking
>for formatting ideas for a "Ulysses" project. The annotations are
>relatively light, but they have included film clips, essays, various
>forms of analysis, a notepad and an audio performance in 350 Mb or so,
>which leaves lots of room for more.

It is the "relatively light" annotations that have kept me from looking to
Voyager's Macbeth as a model. Voyager produced what they called an
"Expanded Book," and, as I hope my comments on the list have suggested, our
plans for the hypermedia Ulysses project are more elaborate and ambitious.
But the project has been done in a Voyager ambience almost from the start.
The prototype was produced in a special program co-sponsored by Voyager and
New York University, and Voyager was going to co-publish the finished
hypermedia Ulysses. They collapsed soon after they offered to do this, and
that ended that, but I have been in regular communication with Bob Stein,
Voyager's co-founder and president, and have kept up with his new plans and
projects. It is still possible that my project will be done with a lot of
Voyager-type thinking.

-----

54) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:13:59 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Jack Kolb wrote:
>I was just looking back over some of the threads of this discussion.
>[(Gabler ed., 7:638-43) [in letter 4]
>Leaving aside all other matters--and I would essentially (though this
>oversimplifies a lot) suggest that one can here offer all the historical
>information necessary to suggest that Crawford is wrong, without--as Gifford
>does--stating such)--I'd simply mention that almost all of my students need
>to know what Gallaher did, and why Crawford considered it such a coup. I
>explain it in class, but I don't think it would be inappropriate as an
>annotation.

Simply stating the facts as they are known, taking care to include all the
details that correct Crawford's mistakes, would probably be sufficient as a
ground-level annotation. Anyone who reads the annotation carefully would be
able to check the facts against Crawford's statements and come to a
conclusion about Crawford. People who skip the annotation, or who read it
quickly, might miss the information, but they might pick it up later, or
the next time through Ulysses, or never. A teacher, if so inclined, could
connect the dots. So could the "interpretation" side of the hypermedia
presentation, if it were consulted.

-----

55) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:58:46 -0500
From: Murray J. Gross

Since we agree that it is difficult if not impossible to separate
"descriptive from interpretative notes" and since we should agree that
we want the Groden Project to be effective and not just a bare
minimalist set of hints ñ what is it that we should do?
Not a new idea: mix the two. Add as much interpretation as you think
necessary. We may be addressing first-time readers of what is clearly a
difficult book. If they are at the stage of being able to read such a
book, then, presumably, they have developed some critical sense and can
tell the difference. The reader would also know that these
interpretations are not the only possible ones and that Groden's Disk is
circa 2005. Why should the new reader, or for that matter any reader,
have to boot himself up all alone; give him a loaded CD and invite him
to join the Joyce community. He need not be trapped in an old
interpretation, he can use it critically to lead to deeper and, if not
better, at least different analyses. If anyone thinks that we can
exhaust the book, think again.
To withhold information or interpretations from the "innocent" reader,
that is "patronizing" .

-----

56) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:08:32 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Richard Stack wrote:
> Mike Groden raises a question about the appropriateness of the evaluative
>remarks in Kiberd's annotation on Groden's chosen passage from Aeolus. After
>making a couple of unobjectionable historical remarks about the episode,
>Kiberd says:
> "Much of the chapter criticizes the revivalist notion that all great
>deeds were done in the past. To Joyce this idealization of the past was a thin
>cover-up for the mediocrity of the present."
> It is certainly true that this is a judgement, but in
>contradistinction to what ? Something true? Objective ? Informative ? Factual ?
>Can we really take such distinctions serously? And, above all, what
>is it, exactly, that is being annotated ? Can we classify it? A word, a
>paragraph, a chapter as a whole, the work of JJ as a whole ? I think not.

To be obtusely literal for a moment, the passage I quoted from Declan
Kiberd's annotations is his note to this specific passage in Ulysses:
"172.17-18 Tim Kelly, or Kavanagh, I mean, Joe Brady" (note on
Penguin, p. 996; the Ulysses page and line numbers are from the Penguin
reprint of the 1960 Bodley Head edition = Gabler 7:639)
So, if I understand Richard Stack's question correctly, the note is an
annotation to a few specific words (names), although Kiberd uses these
words (names) as a springboard for an interpretation.

>My point is the following: as soon as Kiberd makes a general point about
>the chapter as a whole, and then about JJ's work as a whole, his comment is
>classified as "evaluative", and therefore ruled out of bounds.

I'd like to talk briefly about "ruled out of bounds." This all depends on
context of use, and means two very different things in each case. For the
hypermedia Ulysses, we have been trying to talk about distinctions between
a kind of factual annotation that steers clear as much as possible of
interpretation or judgment, and that interpretation itself. If we used
Kiberd's note, the two interpretive sentences would be "out of bounds" for
the factual part, but they could certainly be appropriate for the
interpretation section, We would simply stop the factual note before these
sentences, and provide a link to them, with the link announcing them as
interpretations. If the user followed the link, s/he would see the
interpretation, not alone but surrounded by other interpretations, some
conflicting with this one. Here, it is a matter of classifying the comment,
not removing it or declaring it invalid.
The other context is the book itself as a classroom text. Here, I
have found the intrusion of interpretation (it occurs throughout the notes)
to be more an impediment than a help. So, for the purposes of a classroom
text, I have ruled these comments out of bounds, and I don't use this
edition.

>Literature itself, and certainly the work of JJ, is crammed with
>such passages from fact to evaluation; perhaps in some sense they are what it is
>all about. Why then should we wish to produce a set of purged, antiseptic
>"annotations", pure of all commentary? What a bloodless drag! Pass
>the Phone Book ! Tell us what you think is the case without worrying too much
>whether you are stepping over someone's imaginary line. Be assured that we will be quite
>able to distinguish between your quirky ideas and the "facts". If we can't, we
>should learn to read, for that's what reading is, and if you can't convince us
>that you're reliable and worth reading, we simply won't read you, and no harm
>will be done.

I certainly take Richard's point about Ulysses being about the blurring
about facts and interpretations. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. And we wouldn't be carrying it on for so long if the answer
were easy. (See also Greg Downing's Friday response to Jack Kolb.) But
hypermedia, I hope, will let us make some useful distinctions without
having to eliminate anything. If we call a fact an interpretation, or vice
versa, we will err in where we place some words or how we link to and from
them, but at least the words will be there. And it is easier to fix a
botched link than a printed book or article page.

-----

57) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:28:34 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Brian Hurley wrote:
>1) . . . In such a project as Ulysses in hypermedia it is, as Mike Groden points
>out, *crucial* that one approach (say, a variant of historicism) doesn't
>colour the whole project and effect what material goes in and what stays out.

I agree fully. Hypermedia presents us with a wonderful chance to present
multiple viewpoints in a way that goes beyond what a collection in print
can do, and, I hope, remains true to what Ulysses is all about (that is,
multiplicity).

>2). In my original contribution to this thread I merely wondered, quite
>openly and without much forethought, *how* Ulysses in 1998, with such
>prodigious scholarship at our fingertips, is effected *merely by the
>tools with which it is read*, to say nothing of the temporal distance
>between its readers and 1904/22. I know as well as anyone that this
>question is naive and really unanswerable. We can't turn back time or
>empty our minds of the knowledge we have accumulated. (Though *Eliot*
>may have wished history ended sometime in the seventeenth century even
>as he was [I suppose] grateful for having been exposed to such post-17c
>minds as James Frazer and F.H. Bradley). Interestingly, though, Eliot's
>response to his historical moment was to evade it. It can be (and has
>been) convincingly argued that _The Waste Land_, to take only the most
>obvious, reflects life as Eliot saw it even as Eliot himself totally
>disaproved of it. But Joyce didn't hate his historical moment as much
>as his modernist counterpart did. We keep on reading Joyce, for one,
>because he gives us such a lovingly rendered slice of this life. Garry
>Leonard has written about how for Joyce it was "the moment", as opposed
>to the nightmare of history, in Leonard's formulation, that counted.
>Far from evading the moment (the phenomenological moment that may, in
>special cases, be an 'epiphany'), Joyce wanted to celebrate it. So when
>I asked whether clicking to an annotation might change how these moments
>are experienced by us readers it was not a proscriptive comment on
>annotation _qua_ annotation. Mike Groden is right to ask "who decides
>matters, and who doesn't?". Provide annotations where we can. But it is
>surely not ridiculous to think about how these moments, and I am not
>speaking of the recognized epiphanies as such, might be altered,
>positively or negatively or not at all, by an annotation. There is no
>pure Ur reading to preserve, at least I'm not arguing that (even if I
>believe, as one interested in literary history, that it is worth knowing
>what a 'modernist' reading of a book like Ulysses might be). But I
>think it productive to be an active reader, to always want to understand
>as best we can *how* words on a page make you feel and how other words
>(an annotation?) might contribute to that feeling. Any thoughts?

I doubt if these concerns can be expressed more eloquently. I think that
the people concerned about annotation--from Fritz Senn on--what to
annotate? when to introduce information?--are expressing a version of this
worry about the effect of annotation, and the broader questions we've been
asking on this list are also concerned with the issue. I don't have any
answers, but of course the question is important and right on the mark. My
hope is that the more the people involved in producing an annotated
version, hypermedia or otherwise, keep these questions in mind, and the
more that people like Brian and the others who have offered questions,
skepticisms, and doubts on the list keep asking and doubting, the better
the result will be.

-----

58) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:45:21
From: Andrew H. Blom

I'm a little surprised to find myself taking this position, but a
combination of things said in the "to gloss" thread of late have caused me
to change my mind. Initially I thought the separation of commentary into
two groups --- factual for the first time reader, interpretative for the
studied hand --- was a good idea. Now I'm not so sure.
The number of minds by whose light I'll allow my benighted self to be
guided I can count on one hand: Goethe, however, does happen to be one of
them. As he put it, "Das Hoechste waere zu begreifen, dass alles Faktische
schon Theorie ist" (Goethes Werke, Hamburger Ausgabe, vol.12, p.432). "The
most important thing would be to realize that everything 'factual' is
already theory."
I imagine we basically all realize this. I presume too that we understand
that it is by *consensus* that the factual is established (theoretically)
as such. Consensus can be arrived at; it can also be broken down. It can be
modified. It can be abolished. Obviously such an understanding underlies
Michael Groden's decision to include a great number of amateurs, experts,
scholars, persons with all different backgrounds and perspectives, in the
project. This will be one of its particular strengths.
My suggestion would be to turn this to further advantage by impressing upon
the reader the (merely) consensual nature of the "factual" commentary which
is offered. This could be achieved in a way like the following.
If it is feasible to do so, I would set out to assemble a review panel ---
perhaps one which is going to vary from chapter to chapter, but in any
case, something analogous to the Usage Panel of the American Heritage
Dictionary. What results there is that the user, instead of getting his
English in Sinai granite, finds entries like these:
"Usage: *I*, rather than *me*, is the grammatically prescribed first person
pronoun for use after the verb *be*: *It is I.* In formal writing, *it is
I* is the construction specified by 78 per cent of the Usage Panel. The
variant *it is me* (or *it's me*) is felt by many persons to be much more
natural in speech, and this form is termed acceptable in speech on all
levels by 60 per cent of the Panel. See Usage at *but*."
The whole dictionary opens with a roll call of the Usage Panel, letting the
reader know that Carl Sagan, Red Smith, Tony Randall, and about a hundred
other persons are the responsible parties behind said 60 and 78 per cents.
All in all it's a highly successful strategy, in my opinion --- the reader
is constantly kept aware of the dissent and flexibility which characterize
"standard" language use. If it would be possible to assemble a Review Panel
for the Hypermedia Ulysses, there could be similar benefits for it as well,
perhaps as follows.
Now, I don't suggest including information about percentages unless
something is a contested point. But to give an idea of what I do mean, let
me take the simplest point I can think of that would obviously "have" to be
provided for a first-time reader: a translation of Italian "Già" at 3.493.
(I should note that I didn't know Italian, or anything except English,
really, when I first read Ulysses, and I got along just fine. Personally I
may be leaning toward a "let the first-time reader sink, swim or eat cake"
position, but I realize that's fairly extreme. At any rate it could really
shoot marketability all to hell.)
To continue: Gifford gives:
"3.493 (50:32) *Già* --- Italian: 'Already.' As Stephen uses the word here,
'Già ... Già,' it is an expression of impatience: 'Let's go ... Let's go.'"
Now, to me, this is nonsense. Colloquially, "già" also means "yes, sure, of
course, right," and this, with a sarcastic tone, is the sense in which
Stephen is (to my mind) clearly using it. "Lawn Tennyson, gentleman poet.
Oh yeah, that's me all right. That's what you wanna be, Stevie, sure."
But I could be wrong. "Già" does too mean "already," and perhaps a broader
view of context might lead someone to argue more convincingly that, I don't
know, Stephen is thinking of the nightmare of history and things past,
things that "already" have been, or something.
In this case, things are simple enough that the solution is probably clear;
the Annotations could simply give a full Italian-English dictionary entry
for "già." But not all apparently factual questions are this easy to
resolve in short order, or rather, there are a number of situations, I'm
sure, where inclusivity would quickly explode beyond what is practical.
Moreover, given the worthlessness with which such typical expressions are
translated out of context, I'm not sure that even here one wouldn't have to
give examples of how a particular sense of "già" would affect the reading
of the passage, just as I've had to do above. In other words, as we've
already seen in the course of this thread, if you're really set on helping
the first-time reader, you're just not going to be able to avoid doing some
interpretation for him.
At which point, rather than having a separate category for "Annotations,
Pure and Simple" at all, I would lean toward including, somewhere in the
middle of the list of other critics' names, an option entitled "Review
Panel." Like this:

CRITICISM (menu bar)------------------

Atherton (drop-down menu)
Blamires
Derrida
Gilbert
Review Panel
Senn
Theoharis

Or, at another place:

CRITICISM-------------------

Bauerle
Gorman
Hayman
Lacan
Review Panel
Thornton

For the first-time reader, such an arrangement would bring home the fact
that it's consensual opinion among dissenters that's being given, not
gospel. Obviously the Review Panel entry could give links to the other
critics' stuff. And in the event of severe division of minds among the
Panel members, such a fact could be noted, more or less as the AH
Dictionary has seen fit to do.
Beyond that, two general observations: if Greg Downing's right, and there
really isn't all *that* much Joyce scholarship out there, I'd strongly urge
that the project go for broke and include as much as possible. More is
more, particularly if some qualified categorization of critics is possible
(in some way it would have to be, though obviously that brings up problems
of its own).
And finally, I know we all know this, but it bears repeating; you can lead
a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If the first-time reader
isn't alive enough to be able to change his own mind or to allow it to be
changed over time, he's got no business reading Ulysses. Beyond a certain
point, the risk of mis-teaching such people isn't a risk that the project
should bother to address.* The upside just isn't there. I certainly don't
wish to propose some kind of Calvinism in Joyce studies; but, to bend a
Lotus-Eaters metaphor, if you're going to set out the wine with the host,
rummies will flock with the faithful. Let the angels rejoice that some will
make it to heaven, and leave it at that. (Apologies to Murray Gross, whose
insistence that we're not here to worship JJ couldn't be more appropriate
or refreshing. I'm just speaking broadly. Which is probably a mistake, but
I'm tired.)
For what it's worth ...

* P.S. I'm assuming that the conclusions others have arrived at about
specific varieties of annotative difficulty are acceptable. Namely:
No explicit note about the importance of "Throwaway" should be given. A
reader who follows links to related passages in Ulysses will find it, but
no flags "try these links and get a surprise" will be provided.
"Factual" information about the Phoenix Park murders will be given, and if
the reader can put two and two together, he/she will note that the
"factual" account and the newspaper editor's account don't jive. But no
flags "Compare and contrast: has the editor got his facts right?" will be
provided.
Sorry BTW if I've misquoted, repeated what others have said, failed to note
a solution that already takes mine into account, or what have you. I've
barely been able to keep up with reading this thread, let alone with
double-checking it. Thanks

-----

59) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:59:47 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Richard Stack wrote:
>One thing, for example, that we haven't thought much about as we try
>to theorize annotation is the question of intellectual property-rights. Perhaps
>lying behind the very strong intuitions that so many have expressed ("no editor
>that I know would...." and so forth) about the vital importance of
>distinguishing between the evaluative and the informative, is that the former might be
>thought of as a kind of intellectual property, whereas the latter is less plausibly "ownable".
> The latter therefore is "safe", verifiable, objective, scientific.
>One might perhaps want to be credited with having discovered a piece of information,
>but one scarcely has a patent on it The same cannot be said so readily with respect
>to critical views which have more in common with the kind of "ownership" that an
>author has with respect to his "creations".
> I'm not suggesting that it literally comes down to property-rights
>per se, since we are, almost all of us, much too poor to actually play that game of
>suit and counter-suit. Rather, our ideological intuitions are informed by that
>"bourgeois" regime, (as distinct, for example, from the "amateur" regime, likely
>to disregard such distinctions, that would govern in a courtly society.)
> If I'm right about this, then I suppose there is nothing much to be
>done. The ideological always trumps the rational in such matters.

I'm not sure if this responds to what Richard Stack is getting at, but it
has always been our intention in the hypermedia Ulysses to label every
screen, either by acknowledging a published source or by naming the author
of original material. If there is any ambiguity (facts aren't "owned,"
opinions are), I hope we err on the side of acknowledging and crediting too
much rather than too little. In Richard's terms, I suppose that makes us
(me) even more "bourgeois" than I might be happy admitting, but there it
is. My name is on the project as its director, so I guess that in a sense
nothing in it is unattributed, since uncredited screens would by default be
attributed to the director.

-----

60) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:52:23 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Just a brief note on "bourgeois". It has two distinguishable
meanings: one is characteristic of the bourgoisie, of their style of living, of
their attitudes and so forth. It is generally, for some reason, derogatory.
That is not the meaning I intended.
The other meaning is a little more technical; it means
characteristic of the epoch following the bourgeois revolutions of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and in particular, characteristic of the
special ideological apparatus which this epoch has erected in order to sustain
the regime of property-rights characteristic of this particular type of
economic/political order.
In this sense, we are all "bourgeois", (just as, under the Freudian
dispensation, we are all "neurotic"), whether we like it or not.

-----

61) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:06:59 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Thanks to Andrew Blom for his very thoughtful and helpful response and
suggestions. His suggestion about a review panel is a fine one:

>If it is feasible to do so, I would set out to assemble a review panel ---
> . . . [Letter 58]
>If it would be possible to assemble a Review Panel
>for the Hypermedia Ulysses, there could be similar benefits for it as well,
>perhaps as follows.

This could be very useful, and the computer can perhaps go beyond the
rather awkward percentage numbers (that both suggest a kind of scientific
validity and a, to me, unfortunate degree of specificity). A visual design
like a color scale or a pie chart or something like that could indicate
percentages.

> . . . But to give an idea of what I do mean, let
>me take the simplest point I can think of that would obviously "have" to be
>provided for a first-time reader: a translation of Italian "Già" at 3.493. . . .
>To continue: Gifford gives:
>"3.493 (50:32) *Già* --- Italian: 'Already.' As Stephen uses the word here,
>'Già ... Già,' it is an expression of impatience: 'Let's go ... Let's go.'"

This is a good example. The full passage at the end of Proteus is:

. . . Lawn Tennyson, gentleman poet. _Già_. For the old hag with the yellow
teeth. And Monsieur Drumont, gentleman journalist. _Già_. My teeth are very
bad. . . . (3:493-94)

And, to make the record more pedantically fuller, none of the other
annotators (Thornton, Kiberd in Penguin, Johnson in Oxford) says anything
about the word.

>At which point, rather than having a separate category for "Annotations,
>Pure and Simple" at all, I would lean toward including, somewhere in the
>middle of the list of other critics' names, an option entitled "Review
>Panel." Like this:
>
>CRITICISM (menu bar)
[snip]
>Or, at another place:
>
>CRITICISM
[snip]

This could work, and it would serve people who want to go from the word to
a menu of all possible choices that are available for the word. Probably
"Review Panel" shouldn't be buried in the list but should go at the top or
bottom.
But there are other ways the problem could be dealt with. Clicking on the
word itself will get you to information, and this is where (I think) Greg
Downing and others who have been talking about some kind of bare-bones
factual level would put the information. Click on "_Già_" and you might get
something like Gifford's note: "Italian: 'Already,' as in 'Enough already'
or 'Let's go ... Let's go.'" (This is just an example; perhaps the first
note should be entirely different.) Then, a word saying "More" or
"Interpretations," or a symbol, would direct the user to more information.
Here could be something like the list Andrew suggests (this would
supplement the one in the menu bar), but you could also do something like
providing conflicting interpretations, so that the user wouldn't see just a
statement with some indication that "this is provisional" or "this is an
opinion" but would actually see the different possibilities. The user could
continue to follow the multiple paths, could shut off one or more of the
possibilities (sometimes there would be two in all, sometimes more). A user
might decide that a particular critic is compatible and reliable and go on
to look for what that critic has to say. Others might always seek out two
conflicting opinions.
One way (the list Andrew proposes) says, this word is in dispute and if you
want to see details, click on "review panel." The other way visualizes the
dispute first and then lets the user deal with its existence. I think that
this is the equivalent of Andrew's later conclusion about what we've been
saying about Phoenix Park:

>"Factual" information about the Phoenix Park murders will be given, and if
>the reader can put two and two together, he/she will note that the
>"factual" account and the newspaper editor's account don't jive.
Both ways in (via the link and via the menu bar) are needed. Some readers
will prefer one way and some the other (or, based on whatever is going on
at a particular reading, the same reader might use the link one time and
the menu bar another time).

Am I reading Andrew's remarks correctly?

-----

62) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:19:46 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

Greg Downing asked:
>> How would a hypermedia edition/commentary be used in connection with, or
>> not in connection with, a classroom discussion of Ulysses? And in either case,
>> why?
> This is a huge, and crucial, question. I'll share the thoughts I have so
> far on this next time. Does anyone else have opinions, or questions?

How about a virtual environment where the user can literally ask questions of the people in the novel?
Designing a simple three dimensional world shouldn't be too difficult (with computer program) and using a language component that takes questions in English could be even easier. The work is in making a database of answers or deciding how to go from questions asked of persons in the novel to references within the novel (thus, text from the novel is offered as an anwer). For example, ask Stephen a given question and he says, "remember what Buck Mulligan said in the tower." (I'm making up the question.)
It is possible the virtual interaction could be defined as an opportunity for investigating related information, not as a means of getting answers.
How is that different than usual novel reading? One has a book and begins to imagine the meaning its words convey. When information is not at a given time sufficient to answer one's question, that is possibly the author's intent. There is no one to ask (about the novel when reading it oneself). How could additional help cooperate with a novel being written in a certain way, intended as being addressed as people generally address novels? (That means, say I write a sentence. It is intended that the statement be viewed left to right. Direct artistry has not been applied for the statement being viewed in any other way. Maybe sequence is the focus.)
Nevertheless, were I to find a Hammurabi's code of my own (or the uninterpreted words), my task is not "to read a novel", it is to gain more understanding or to account for one kind of experience. Then I may make use of methods of understanding the words that that original author's may not have had in mind.
So there is reading-the-novel-as-a-novel and using available advantages to understand information. (I'm not claiming that use of the computer is better; however, I remember writing an index of one of Blake's longer poems on a set of index cards in the early 1980's--just in case there could be useful information brought to light. What I learned is that that is a bunch of work, and now I'd hope to use a computer to do the indexing.)

-----

63) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:41:55 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

>>> Andrew H. Blom 11/29 4:51 pm >>>
> "Factual" information about the Pheonix Park murders will be given, and if
> the reader can put two and two together, he/she will note that the
> "factual" account and the newspaper editor's account don't jive. But no
> flags "Compare and contrast: has the editor got his facts right?" will be
> provided.

I'm not acquainted enough with the book account and the facts to know how much the facts and the account differ; however, I *think* that I'd like to have the flag and statement "newspaper editor's account is inaccurate". It may be that my following comments do not relate very directly to the particular facts of "Ulysses".
Certainly in a number of cases, it is possible to offer an account, investigate the account with questions, and find that the account doesn't in its words provide the complete meaning.

For example: Jim and Mark entered the park at 4. The shade from the surrounding trees made their progress invisible to any of those on the other side of the pond. Sally entered the park at 5:15 and did not see the boys. When she arrived home at 5:30, she said, "Mum, the boys weren't at the park when I got there." Mrs. Fields said, "Sally, how many times have I told you not to simply walk through the park without checking at all of the playing fields?"

Given only the additional fact, "the boys were home at 4:45", I'm not sure how much I could definitively say about Mrs. Fields' ability to respond to Sally's statement as she did. Did Mrs. Fields talk with or see the boys after they got home? Did she know when Sally arrived at the park? How did she know? Was Sally told to look for the boys? Did Sally, as the time may suggest, simply walk directly through the park or perhaps only look into the park?
May as well let me know :)

-----

64) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:59:46
From: Andrew H. Blom

>This could be very useful, and the computer can perhaps go beyond the
>rather awkward percentage numbers (that both suggest a kind of scientific
>validity and a, to me, unfortunate degree of specificity). A visual design
>like a color scale or a pie chart or something like that could indicate
>percentages.

Yes, something at any rate to dispel the notion of unanimity or fixity in
the annotations.

>This is a good example. The full passage at the end of Proteus is:
>. . . Lawn Tennyson, gentleman poet. _Già_. For the old hag with the yellow
>teeth. And Monsieur Drumont, gentleman journalist. _Già_. My teeth are very
>bad. . . . (3:493-94)

Sorry, I should probably have included the full passage, but I was trying
to be brief. In fact this was the briefest example of a
must-annotate-for-the-first-time-reader passage I could think of. And
again, my point was that even for such a comparatively straightforward
annotation --- the translation of a single, isolated foreign word --- still
it would appear difficult to avoid a highly suggestive degree of
interpretation, if said "factual" annotation is to be at all useful for the
first-time reader. To be clearer, I personally don't experience any dilemma
here; I think the reading I suggested is much more satisfying than
Gifford's, so his should be retired, and mine should supplant it. But I'd
be a fool if I didn't find it perfectly conceivable for another reader to
come up with a reading either as good as or much, much better than my own,
indeed perhaps one that ends up relying on the sense of "già" which Gifford
proposes after all, though in a different light.
(This might be a good place to note, since I'm not sure if your paraphrase
translation "enough already" was intended as a compromise between mine and
Gifford's, that really there are two completely different words "già" in
Italian, and never the twain shall meet. The adverb (Gifford's) derives
from Latin "iam." The exclamation (mine) derives from German "ja." Maybe
Mario Faraone could back me up on this.)

>This could work, and it would serve people who want to go from the word to
>a menu of all possible choices that are available for the word. Probably
>"Review Panel" shouldn't be buried in the list but should go at the top or
>bottom.

The "unprivileged" alphabetical order was only a suggestion to emphasize
that the putative panel's opinions are just that --- opinions --- among the
wide variety available. But that's pretty extreme too, and it would
probably be better to proceed as you suggest. I'll repeat that I don't wish
to suggest all opinions about Ulysses are equal. More comprehensive or
informed views supersede ones that are less so. Coherent and precise
arguments supersede vague or incoherent ones. Presumably the good hard look
at Joyce scholarship to be undertaken by Hypermedia Ulysses will result in
an embrace of the most coherent and comprehensive stuff to date. So I don't
really mind at all if it's given a privileged position. But then there is
more risk of it being taken as gospel.

>But there are other ways the problem could be dealt with. Clicking on the
>word itself will get you to information, and this is where (I think) Greg
>Downing and others who have been talking about some kind of bare-bones
>factual level would put the information. Click on "_Già_" and you might get
>something like Gifford's note: "Italian: 'Already,' as in 'Enough already'
>or 'Let's go ... Let's go.'" (This is just an example; perhaps the first
>note should be entirely different.) Then, a word saying "More" or
>"Interpretations," or a symbol, would direct the user to more information.
>Here could be something like the list Andrew suggests (this would
>supplement the one in the menu bar), but you could also do something like
>providing conflicting interpretations, so that the user wouldn't see just a
>statement with some indication that "this is provisional" or "this is an
>opinion" but would actually see the different possibilities. The user could
>continue to follow the multiple paths, could shut off one or more of the
>possibilities (sometimes there would be two in all, sometimes more). A user
>might decide that a particular critic is compatible and reliable and go on
>to look for what that critic has to say. Others might always seek out two
>conflicting opinions.

I think this is pretty much where we were before, but, having said my piece
to try and weigh things away from a "factual" wing, I'll agree that it's a
good solid compromise. And you can't go wrong by providing more information.
By the way, there's another advantage to inclusiveness that may aid the
first-time user in a different sense. It's perfectly possible that someone
will follow all the links slavishly and take a month to get through
Telemachus, scarcely daring to take a step on his or her own. But
eventually, if the wade of criticism is thick enough, it's almost
inevitable that he or she will chuck the aids and return to the text alone,
if only from sheer exasperation. That's kind of what happened to me,
actually. Things worked out okay.

>One way (the list Andrew proposes) says, this word is in dispute and if you
>want to see details, click on "review panel." The other way visualizes the
>dispute first and then lets the user deal with its existence. (I think that
>this is the equivalent of Andrew's later conclusion about what we've been
>saying about Phoenix Park:
>>"Factual" information about the Pheonix Park murders will be given, and if
>>the reader can put two and two together, he/she will note that the
>>"factual" account and the newspaper editor's account don't jive.
>Both ways in (via the link and via the menu bar) are needed. Some readers
>will prefer one way and some the other (or, based on whatever is going on
>at a particular reading, the same reader might use the link one time and
>the menu bar another time).
>Am I reading Andrew's remarks correctly?
Umm, I think so, except that I hadn't actually intended to contradict
myself, so let me hasten to correct my sloppiness. That is, in my final
appended note about the PP murders, I meant to address not the question of
"factuality" in annotation, but rather the original problem of "giving the
story-to-come away." As far as I can tell they're two separate issues. I
see a number of apparently bare-bones, "factual" annotations in Gifford and
others that give nothing away, that in fact only strive to elucidate or
source the line at hand; and still they are all at sea, as far as I can
tell. "Già" above is a minor example.
In essence, attempting to pull away from a "factual" extreme, I was sort of
suggesting that *all* "factual" annotations, even undisputed ones, could be
offered under a "review panel" heading or at least something of the kind
which would reinforce the notion of [ever-challengeable] community
consensus, rather than under a [this much is unshakeable] "bare-bones
factual annotation" heading.
Does that make sense? Sorry to spin this stuff a little bit offhandedly,
I'm glad to clarify anything which doesn't quite square. Thanks for calling
me on the last one

.-----

65) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:09:22
From: Andrew H. Blom

John Paul Fullerton wrote:
>I'm not acquainted enough with the book account and the facts to know how
much the facts and the account differ; however, I *think* that I'd like to
have the flag and statement "newspaper editor's account is inaccurate". It
may be that my following comments do not relate very directly to the
particular facts of "Ulysses".

As I understand the project, Michael Groden was indeed talking about
providing this information, only at a deeper level than that initial one
which would be recommended for the first-time reader. But maybe it's
exactly that to which you're objecting. In any case, I was merely trying to
sum up others' conclusions (which I liked) about issues that were somewhat
different than the one I was talking about. It might be better for someone
else who was more involved in the Pheonix Park discussion to try to answer
your difficult question.

-----

66) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 11:00:18 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

Andrew H. Blom said
> John Paul Fullerton wrote:
>> I'm not acquainted enough with the book account and the facts to know how
>> much the facts and the account differ; however, I *think* that I'd like to
>> have the flag and statement "newspaper editor's account is inaccurate". It
>> may be that my following comments do not relate very directly to the
>> particular facts of "Ulysses".

While writing my note and more definitely after, it seemed that I should have acknowledged the value of what Andrew had said, instead of only commenting on a point of (possible) difference.
> As I understand the project, Michael Groden was indeed talking about
> providing this information, only at a deeper level than that initial one
> which would be recommended for the first-time reader. But maybe it's
> exactly that to which you're objecting. In any case, I was merely trying to
> sum up others' conclusions (which I liked) about issues that were somewhat
> different than the one I was talking about. It might be better for someone
> else who was more involved in the Pheonix Park discussion to try to answer
> your difficult question.

I didn't mean to offer a difficult question, only to say that a presentation of facts often does not convey to another what one may think it should. How many elements in earlier or present experience could make it possible to overlook a clue?
Once in Aesthetics, we were studying Sartre's "Kean". In one scene he has an interaction with a young woman and after she is gone he begins whistling to himself. Perhaps in highlighting these two events, the possiblity comes to mind that the conversational interchange was pleasant, yet when I said in class, "I think he likes her." The teacher said, "What?" Until I mentioned the whistling as an indication of that.
Maybe another action like skipping stones on a pond might not convey to me the same meaning that whistling did, though it could in a given context mean or relate to the same thing. There I might appreciate a nudge when such a clue is to be found, and being given a nudge doesn't seem like annotation taking away from the experience of literature. It may indeed be better to be offered these annotations only on request.
These comments offered as part of the shared continued survey of annotating literature

.-----

67) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 20:58:55
From: Andrew H. Blom

At 11:00 AM 98/12/01 -0600, John Paul Fullerton wrote:
>While writing my note and more definitely after, it seemed that I should
have acknowledged the value of what Andrew had said, instead of only
commenting on a point of (possible) difference.

Whoops! Hope my reply didn't sound miffed (this sounds like a reply to a
reply that sounded miffed), I didn't feel put down or anything like that at
all. On the contrary, I appreciated your very imaginative reply. From what
you've said in your second post, it seems that we do agree that a kind of
compromise is necessary, at which point I suppose we are lumping our
opinions in with others who've been saying the same thing.

>I didn't mean to offer a difficult question, only to say that a
presentation of facts often does not convey to another what one may think
it should. How many elements in earlier or present experience could make it
possible to overlook a clue?

When I said difficult, I just meant that it was difficult for *me* to
answer. As you've probably understood by now from my other points, I hadn't
done too much thinking myself about the issues you brought up. I had only
wanted to echo others' thoughts on the same topics for the sake of some
completeness, but I ended up creating some confusion instead. In any case,
your point about the difficulty of following associative leaps is a very
good one. I too would like to have the information about discrepant
accounts at my disposal --- but then I'm not a first-time reader. In any
case, getting such annotations "only on request," as you put it, seems like
a perfectly good solution as far as my own needs go.

-----

68) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:36:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 11:58 AM 11/26/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>A cluster of posts dealt with whether we should annotate everything we know.
>Brian Hurley:
>>1. Is there really no sense in which too much annotation may work
>>against the spirit of Ulysses, its themes, its take on history,
>>knowledge, and the aesthetic?
>>. . . [Letter 42]
>>Both, I think.
>
>Brian Hurley:
>>Greg, what are your feelings on annotation in general?
>>Always a good thing? Never a bad thing? The same whether one is
>>annotating Shakespeare or Joyce?
>
>[Mike Groden then commented:]
>
>These questions go far beyond Ulysses, but they are very important ones.
>For my own selfish purposes, I'm delighted that there is a kind of
>"town"-"gown" (or whatever) division that has opened up somewhat,

Socially/sociologically, it often sets itself up as town/gown
(nonacademic/academic), but cultural, philosophical, methodological, and
ideological issues underlie this debate. In fact, one sees nonacademics
supporting the "more-glossing" position, and academics supporting the
"less-glossing" position. Let's talk a little about one of the most central
sets of issues underlying the split. Here's part of my current understanding
of one area of the debate, and forgive the thorniness of the following if
you can -- I don't have time to edit it extensively, so this is going to
have to be more or less the way it "comes out" as I write it. Sorry, I guess
first drafts are all we have time for on email....

POSITION (1): People who are willing to tolerate the existence of a larger
number of exegetical resources without talking about such resources
negatively are echoing several components of modernity: e.g.,
latitudinarianism (which grows out of individualism and liberalism in its
etymological sense), and an awareness of complexity and its implications --
i.e., things are complex, and a complex and detailed discussion will tend to
approximate that complexity less imperfectly than a simpler discussion,
despite ineliminable subjectivity. Latitudinarianism and complexity can
easily function in complementary fashion, because the (relatively)
"free," modern, subjective individual operates by grappling empirically and
analytically with the complexity of the constituent detail of anything to
which s/he pays attention.
Despite the subjectivities and limitations of all "information," Position
(1) people tend to want more or maximum "information," because they think
that will help them go about the task of trying to arrive at what they hope
(or assume?) will be their own better understandings as they grapple,
individually, with experience (even "textual experience," so to speak) and
all its complexities.

POSITION (2): People who are less willing to tolerate the existence of a
larger number of exegetical resources, and therefore tend to talk about such
resources negatively or at least call them into question, are also echoing
several components of modernity: e.g., the advanced-modern idea that one of
complexity's interesting implications is that (A) truth and (B) selfhood
(the "individual") are complex as well. (A) Unlike the rationalistic
assumptions of some parts of 18th cent. culture and the positivistic
assumptions of some parts of 19th/20th cent. culture, antipositivistic or
antiveristic modernity assumes that things are so complex, and our empirical
and analytical tools for understanding them so imperfect, that all
assertions are constructs inevitably colored by lots of contexts --
personal, phenomenological, social, cultural, etc. (B) Unlike the heroic
individualism of the Renaissance/early-modern or Romantic eras, individuals
and their actions thus become inextricable parts of larger cultural, social,
etc. networks -- i.e., the individual is conditioned by all of his/her
surroundings, and the autonomous individual and even authorial
intentionality are seen as reductions/simplifications/distortions.
Despite the utility and to some extent necessity of "information," Position
(2) people tend to want other individuals to impose less "information" on
them or on those for whom they feel solicitude, because such "information"
is not unproblematically veritistic and is therefore, in major ways, a
function of social and cultural and ideological agendas operating through
the would-be "providers" of "information," no matter what those providers
may think about their own intentions or effects. Provision of "information,"
no matter how "neutrally" engaged in, has a veritistic effect and a
potestative effect: i.e., it involves an implicit claim that something might
be true, or at least truer than something else that might have been written,
and therefore constitutes a power-play that is all the more insidious
because of its implicitude, its covertness. So provision of information is
problematic because it is not (pardon the expression) true to the
antiveritistic and anti-"heroic intentionalizing individual" aspects of
advanced modernity.
People supporting some version of Position (1) and Position (2) have spoken
clearly and repeatedly on this thread. There are ironies in both their
positions. Position (2) argues against the veritistic tendencies of the
modern individual, but seems to contain an idea (sometimes submerged and
sometimes acknowledged) that criticism of the "information provider" is
intended to protect the heroic, authentic operation of other individuals
("leave people to experience the book themselves; don't screw with or ruin
their experiences"). I suppose this might sound like a certain hypocrisy,
but it is really just a function I think of a significant effect of
modernity that I mentioned earlier on this thread: namely, relatively free
individuals *all* seeking to formulate worldviews and develop their own
paths through experience, and therefore tending to feel that parallel
activity on the part of others impinges on their own pursuit of the same
kinds of activity. So there is a kind of individualism, a kind of
"romanticism" or "authenticism," inherent in Position (2)'s opposition to
what it often sees as the "romanticism" and "authenticism" of Position (1).
But meanwhile, Position (1) can tend in the hands of the careless toward a
kind of positivism or objectivism that undercuts Position (1)'s claim to
awareness of complexity and subjectivity....
So have we now theorized ourselves into silence? Do we now understand the
dynamics of these attitudes sufficiently to drive ourselves into aporia?
Maybe we'll see as we work on through the "gloss" thread.... There's more to
say about the maxiglossing and miniglossing positions, and plenty left
undiscussed above, but this is more than enough for now....

>because
>one of the goals we decided on early on for the hypermedia Ulysses project
>was that it would try to reach and serve readers at all levels from
>beginners to scholars, both in and out of organized classrooms.

This is a really important and laudable goal -- and I think the only large
thing that stands in the way of such a goal is the mutual intolerance of
some kinds of readers and users for each other. (See above, and see prior
posts on this "gloss" thread.)

>_We_ have
>to keep thinking about all the different possible groups of readers, but of
>course the readers will look to see whether their own needs are being met
>without caring about any kind of overarching view.

Do tell!

> Of course, also, we are talking in the abstract, since most of you
>haven't seen what we are trying to do in the project, but I hope that those
>of you who have been expressing opinions will help us by looking at
>versions of the hypermedia project as they develop and let us know what is
>working and what isn't. Your sense of what can and can't be done, and what
>should and shouldn't be done, will probably change once you see what the
>thing actually looks like and how it is structured. (And, of course, how it
>is structured will be affected by the things you are saying in these posts.)

Right -- theorizing in the abstract is one thing, talking about concrete
details is another thing altogether.

>The opinions I've quoted here seem to me to strike at the heart of the
>humanities and humanistic education. My instincts in this debate are all on
>the side of providing everything, or at least all you can. The trick, as
>has been said several times already, is to organize the information in a
>way that is useful, unobtrusive, and so clearly structured that a user will
>be able to find what s/he wants and not be bothered by the rest. (There
>will, of course, be limits on what we present; it won't be possible to
>present everything. But what is left out will be a matter more of
>permission beyond denied--almost every piece of published criticism and
>scholarship on Ulysses is still in copyright, and people or publishers who
>control the rights to materials might not let us use them--or charges for
>permissions being beyond our budget, or our own energy running out than of
>a decision to leave out information.)

My instincts tend to run with the above para., but I am happy that we are
hashing all these attitudes out, because they are important on many levels--
for Joyce/Ulysses, for commentary and literary interpretation, for the
culture in general, etc.

> My first reaction to Brian Hurley's question was to wonder if he
>would suggest that libraries should curtail what they purchase so that
>readers don't learn too much. The problem can't be that there is too much
>that we can learn. My second thought was to recall T.S. Eliot's statement
>in "Tradition and the Individual Talent": "Someone said, 'The dead writers
>are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.' Precisely,
>and they are that which we know." Placed alongside Richard Ellmann's
>opening line in his biography of Joyce, "We are still learning to be James
>Joyce's contemporaries, to understand our interpreter."

And I'd add that there is nothing necessarily mystical about this -- even
from the angle of Position (2) above, Joyce is a conduit through which a lot
of interesting and important aspects of evolving modernity flowed into
texts, which means that in annotating (and interpreting) Ulysses, we are
annotating (and interpreting) modernity, including aspects of advanced
modernity that have developed *since* 1922 (regardless of whether or not any
particular post-1922 cultural developments are partly the result of direct
or mediated Joycean influence on the culture).
This goes back to the point about epic as encyclopedia and commentary as
encyclopedia that I mentioned in response to Frank Dauenhauer on this thread
on 11/21.

>These two
>statements seem to me to get close to the heart of why we keep reading and
>studying books like Ulysses, and why worries like Brian's have to affect,
>deeply, the way we go about organizing the materials we use in a
>hypermedia project but why they can't affect the basic decision to include
>or not include material. Of course, we know more than Bloom or a 1904 or
>1922 Dubliner or Joyce--we know Ulysses, we know Finnegans Wake, we know
>postmodern lit., Freud, Derrida, Foucault, Kenner, etc. etc. ("We" and
>"know" subject to as many qualifications as you want.) What else is
>liberal-arts education for but to make sure that we know more? Of course,
>crucially, we also know less: we don't know about the Phoenix Park murders
>as if they happened yesterday, etc. etc. Many of the posts about how to
>provide contexts and what contexts to provide have tried to negotiate
>between the different degrees of knowledge and ignorance we each bring to a
>book like Ulysses, or to Shakespeare....
> In graduate school my Chaucer teacher was one of those so-called
>"Robertsonians" (he was Robertson himself, actually) who insisted that
>nothing could be said about Chaucer that wouldn't be known to a
>14th-century reader. With Ulysses, yes, Joyce knew that his audience would
>never know everything that is in the book, and yes we can't pretend that we
>ever will, hypermedia Ulysses or not. If Ellmann is even remotely accurate,
>we keep reading Ulysses precisely because we will never "understand our
>interpreter." _That_ is what Joyce pulled off, not the puzzles and games,
>and that is why Ulysses lasts.

I don't see a wrong step in any of the above; see my comments just above
about the Ellmann incipit. We never understand our evolving culture or our
changing world completely, or even any one of the culture's or the world's
individual moments. So why should we expect (or: *fear*) the exhaustion of
Ulysses, which is a pretty large and complex text -- one that probably even
contains patterns, dare we say it..., that Joyce didn't or couldn't have had
in mind, despite his status as a notoriously "intentionalizing" author.

-----

69) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:47:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

One para. of comment below --

At 12:27 PM 11/26/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>Frank Dauenhauer wrote:
>>Just a suggestion, with an eye toward lessening the potential for users'
>>confusion with "layered" help: let the reader of the hypertext edition of
>>Ulysses "log in" to the book at any of a number of levels, which h/she can
>>change instantly by clicking on a numbered icon: e.g.,
>> . . .[Letter 43]
>
>Categories like this might be quite useful. But the computer screen is
>visual as much as verbal, and a numbered list sounds a lot like an outline
>on a page. I'd rather think of something like color-codings or some other
>visual rather than numerical system. I'd prefer to stay away from any
>system that lets you rate yourself, or be rated ("only" a 3; a _real_
>reader of Ulysses can handle 9, etc.).

I really have to agree with the para. immediately above. Not all users with
the same "credentials" are the same -- not all PhD students know the same
things, not all undergrads know the same things. People who are many
different ages and from many different backgrounds should be able to be
accommodated without having to label themselves. People who are highly
educated might come to Ulysses for the first time because they have been
focused on other areas or related areas in their past work, without ever
having had occasion ot deal with Ulysses, or deal with it much. Avoid
apartheid -- no signs above the drinking fountains stating who should use or
should not use this facility. The point is not what degree you have, but
what kind of "information" you are looking for. So describe potential links
a user could choose to follow in "substantive" terms rather than by "social
type" or "level of credentials held." Give people decent indications of the
content that is accessed by following a link, and then let people decide
what they want -- not how they want to or "should" label themselves

.-----

70) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:37:17 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

The thought came to mind that maybe managing "amount of annotation" is partly a computer programming activity.
The main notions that led to the programming viewpoint were 1) letting the user define how much info that they want to show (while full set of info is available, hmm, maybe added books on subscription basis, pay a royalty of $10, add John Smith's book) with pre-defined "selection-sets" easily available (beginner selection set gets novel, Gifford's (author's name?) annotations, map of Dublin, Joyce's design plan) and 2) having a method of finding what should be or could be included.
There's a description of "Essential Modeling" at the following location. The article that is the basis for the description (citation included with description) offers more info.

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/search/method.htm

The description includes four questions that could be asked during the design process.
"What is the essential purpose of such an applet?"
"Identify user roles that imply differing needs and distinct patterns of usage."
Starting with the user roles, identify essential use cases.
Derive use contexts from the essential use case model.
(My list includes these questions and (application focused) responses for a description of how to search the WWW.)
The design method centers on cases of use (events of application being used) and from that focus gathers information about of who (role) is using the application, what the activity of the use (use cases) is, what needs to be provided or brought up front (contexts) for that use (and the set of all uses). As it's indicated in a chart, design starts with considering the users, sees (imagines) how the application is used, supports those uses (in advance, thinking of what the program will have to provide to support those uses) and builds appropriate access for the supporting functions into the program.
Let me give an example response for each question in the design process (as I understand it).
"What is the essential purpose of such an applet?"
Making Ulysses more understandable, accessible, and enjoyable to more people.
"Identify user roles that imply differing needs and distinct patterns of usage."
User 1. Student - has minimal introduction to Joyce and writing about Joyce, needs to find a way of gaining sufficient expertise to make good score on test, prefers one reading of the book, does not like unexplained content - will use "dictionary" type function often and other factual info.
Starting with the user roles, identify essential use cases.
User 1, Use Case 1. Student starts application. Has to learn how to begin using it.
User 1, Use Case 2. Student begins reading novel. Begins to respond to novel. Begins to use information tools.
User 1, Use Case 3 (possibly typical). Student returns to application to continue reading. Has selected the display of information on screen and has skill in using a set of the tools. Probably will not investigate all tools and all uses of tools.
Derive use contexts from the essential use case model.
User 1, Use Case 3. Keep location in book. Keep location on window. Provide easy access to tools that student has recently used. Student could benefit from "Excel lightbulb" type prompt. ("Advancing through the book is possible through scroll bar arrow (clicking, pressing), button (moving), scroll bar (clicking), Pg keys, arrow keys.")
Following the described design process should improve the set of needs that an application provides for. It is possible that the "focus" of the application will not seem as exact.

-----

71) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 14:11:58 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Jack Kolb wrote:
> To "overread" Ulysses is very tempting for the reader
> seeking help.

Indeed. This is a most valuable observation. I find I spend a lot of time in
class cutting down (as gently as I can) a whole string of ingenious but mistaken
ideas about just how this text may go about making meaning (notably remarks
about things being "symbols" of this or that.)
And it is precisely because, as Jack points out below, the book
itself is concerned to teach you how to read that such fanciful flights occur.
JJ obliges you to read so damned carefully that you feel that any pattern you
think you can see must inevitably be there, which is, of course, not the case at
all.

-----

72) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:42:41 -0500
From: Michael Groden

Again, thanks to all the people who have continued to offer their ideas
about annotations and reactions to the various posts. Thanks especially to
Greg Downing for his careful delineation of the two positions regarding the
availability of exegetical information. The hypermedia Ulysses will (I'm
confident of this) be a lot better and more subtly designed because of all
the issues that people have raised here and positions they've mapped out.
A few responses to recent posts:

Andrew Blom:
>I'll repeat that I don't wish
>to suggest all opinions about Ulysses are equal. More comprehensive or
>informed views supersede ones that are less so. Coherent and precise
>arguments supersede vague or incoherent ones. Presumably the good hard look
>at Joyce scholarship to be undertaken by Hypermedia Ulysses will result in
>an embrace of the most coherent and comprehensive stuff to date.

Yes, definitely. We have to choose and to leave much out. This will all be
done by large groups of people so that the result doesn't represent one
person's opinion of what is coherent and comprehensive and what can stand
now and what has been superseded.

>So I don't
>really mind at all if it's [the results from the Review Panel] given a
>privileged position. But then there is
>more risk of it being taken as gospel.

This will take more thought. We don't want to develop an anti-ossifying
method and then let the results become ossified.

Andrew Blom:
>In essence, attempting to pull away from a "factual" extreme, I was sort of
>suggesting that *all* "factual" annotations, even undisputed ones, could be
>offered under a "review panel" heading or at least something of the kind
>which would reinforce the notion of [ever-challengeable] community
>consensus, rather than under a [this much is unshakeable] "bare-bones
>factual annotation" heading.
>Does that make sense?

Yes, it certainly does. It, too, will take more thought for us to put it
into practice in a way that is useful and not confusing.

John Paul Fullerton's question:
>>I'm not acquainted enough with the book account and the facts to know how
>much the facts and the account differ; however, I *think* that I'd like to
>have the flag and statement "newspaper editor's account is inaccurate". It
>may be that my following comments do not relate very directly to the
>particular facts of "Ulysses".
Andrew Blom's response:
>As I understand the project, Michael Groden was indeed talking about
>providing this information, only at a deeper level than that initial one
>which would be recommended for the first-time reader. But maybe it's
>exactly that to which you're objecting.
John Paul Fullerton's response:
> There I might appreciate a nudge when such a clue is to be found, and
>being given a nudge doesn't seem like annotation taking away from the
>experience of literature. It may indeed be better to be offered these
>annotations only on request.

"On request" is what we have in mind. The trick is to design it in a way
that lets readers (and this is part of the "first-time reader" issue) know
what they will gain by asking for the information and what they will
possibly lose.

John Paul Fullerton:
>The thought came to mind that maybe managing "amount of annotation" is
>partly a computer programming activity.
>The main notions that led to the programming viewpoint were 1) letting the
>user define how much info that they want to show (while full set of info
>is available, hmm, maybe added books on subscription basis, pay a royalty
>of $10, add John Smith's book) with pre-defined "selection-sets" easily
>available (beginner selection set gets novel, Gifford's (author's name?)
>annotations, map of Dublin, Joyce's design plan) and 2) having a method of
>finding what should be or could be included.

I find this very intriguing as a conceptual model, as long as it doesn't
harden into a set of buttons (for example: push button 1 and you get
Ulysses, Gifford map, etc.). I'll just refer to Greg Downing's message from
yesterday about labelling and apartheid. The programming model could
certainly help in the thinking about how the information can be structured,
but I hope that the result will be fluid, allowing, even encouraging,
categories to be blurred and bypassed. But maybe I'm missing something in
what John is saying. Please correct me if I am.

-----

73) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:09:58 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

Michael Groden 12/04 10:44 am
> John Paul Fullerton:
>>The thought came to mind that maybe managing "amount of annotation" is
>> partly a computer programming activity. . . . [Letter 72]

> I find this very intriguing as a conceptual model, as long as it doesn't
> harden into a set of buttons (for example: push button 1 and you get
> Ulysses, Gifford map, etc.). I'll just refer to Greg Downing's message from
> yesterday about labelling and apartheid. The programming model could
> certainly help in the thinking about how the information can be structured,
> but I hope that the result will be fluid, allowing, even encouraging,
> categories to be blurred and bypassed.

What I was focusing on was 1) allow users to make a list of what they want available as annotation, yet 2) don't require that they completely write the list themself (have pre-defined lists available that can be copied and edited). The set of available annotations can be edited.
So, beginner selection set gets novel, Gifford's annotations, map of Dublin, Joyce's design plan. The user could add "Hugh Kenner's comments" to the beginner selection set of on-screen annotations. (Instead of on-screen annotations, the tools could be available as a palette or menus.)
Computer programming offers a different perspective when thinking about options. Within the total programming package every element (for example, get input key from keyboard, sort out that input from all other inputs and requests, find action for input, perform action, get new data, show new data) has to be accounted for. WWW other projects have to work with related options, though not at the computer programming language level. Even so, the considerations of program design may prove of benefit in other work.

-----

74) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:57:47 -0800
From: Jack Kolb

I guess I feel about hypertext editions the same way I feel about the net:
(hypothetically) there should be no restrictions. By all means, offer
criticism; if possible: perhaps, the more the better. The worst of the
alternatives is to offer any ONE interpretation. But ideally there should
be some attempt (difficult as that sometimes is) to separate annotative from
interpretive material. As an editor of a 19th century writer's poetry and
prose, I have no problem with separating the categories (and, in my case,
rigidly excluding the latter). I'm not sure I see the difficulty in the
case of Joyce's novel. Could I get some more specific instances?
I'm still concerned about the effect on the initial reader, whatever the
hypertext format. To "overread" Ulysses is very tempting for the reader
seeking help. Yet I think what Joyce essentially offers is a "sink or swim"
attitude. And of course (though the initiate doesn't know this) the fact
that the reader is going to begin to understand as she continues. That
Ulysses, in short, is a work that teaches the reader how to read...Ulysses.
And that, of course, its circularity means that one must read ahead to
understand what is behind.
I have no doubt (and not just based upon my ex-wife's experience) that the
surest way to destroy the book is to read it as a collection of clever
illusions.

-----

75) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:01:58 +0100
From: Fritz Senn

I. AM. A. [Gabler 13: 1258, 1264]
There seem to be two aspects. One is what Bloom actually would have written if he had completed an intended sentence. Always supposing that Bloom knows what he is going to write. He could just start the act of writing without any particular goal or message in mind (the way we may begin a letter), verbally doodling, as he goes along. The first thing would be "I", always the starting point, or a platitude. Bloom writes himself first, as earlier on he read himself (mistakenly) into a text ("Bloo ... Me? No. Blood of the Lamb"; 8.8).
The gap, naturally, invites our inspired guesses. In part at least, THAT (the filling of a gap) is also the meaning. I sometimes thought of "I am alone". We do not really know if "A" is the article or the first letter of a word not known to all men.
On the level of symbolic reverberations I believe we do indeed have echoes of Christ writing in the sand, also of I AM THAT I AM, not to forget the first half of "I AM A = Alpha" (... and Omega). Etc. Odysseus also once wrote in the sand, or rather Ulixes as Ovid paints him. On the beach he would outline to Calypso the exploits around Troy. "He with a light staff S draws in the deep sand the tale of which she asks" ("Ille levi virga . . . Quod rogat, in spisso litore fecit", Ovid, Ars amatoria, II,131-2 , Loeb translation). The situation is different, but Ulixes does say, explaining his sketch of the siege, "Hac ego sum" ("there I AM"), II.138. (more in JJQ 25:I (fall 1987), 42)
As it happens, the A moreover points forward to the next chapter. We know that the letter Aleph which became Alpha which became A originally meant OX. Oxen of the Sun also contains an "Alpha S upon the forehead of Taurus" and a "shipload from planet Alpha" (14.1108, 1171).
Somehow this also links up to the fruitful debate about Glossolalia that has been going on. What of the above (and from all the contributions) should become part of an annotation of the passage, in which wording, which which certainty, at what level of hierarchic distance from the text?

-----

76) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:31:18 -0600
From: John Paul Fullerton

The following relates to my earlier question about what to look for in first reading "Ulysses" as well as the annotation thread and the Mulligan/Dedalus thread.
I said
> 1. Joyce uses word-combinations to convey both the intended basic
> conversational flow and another probably more imaginative and perceptive
> commentary.
I haven't yet noticed any word-combinations that have express the author's meaning other than it being the understanding of the person in the novel. One humorous example is Bloom's imagined "do ptake of ptarmigan." It seems that the humor is known to Bloom. Another "poetic" example that is not really an example of word-combinations, though it is related to Dedalus' prose, is Bloom's reference to a two-line poem about a sea-bird, something like, it's wings swept the heavens gully/while the sea stirred dully. Bloom refers to it as exemplary poetry; and I think that it's an example of use of rhyme without adding one whit to the words of the poem. That's an example, then, of Bloom not understanding the meaning of language, or, more kindly put, appreciating use of language that is generally not considered exemplary or precise.

> 2. Joyce doesn't let anything get two "heavenly"
Didn't notice any counter-strategies for dealing with exalted prose. However, it did seem to me that Dedalus more than any voice in "Ulysses" (only through chapter 8) offers more prosaic language. Instead of using other language to take away from that exhalted prose, I think the author simply lets the prose stay in view, and possibly suggest to the reader that it's more than needs to be said. Two examples--the last statement of chapter 2 and part of the stream of consciousness in chapter 3. In chapter 2, Dedalus talks with the school-master and then begins to leave the school after work. The school-master runs after Dedalus, breathless, to add a point of info. He explains an earlier statement that he had made, having to do with Ireland's excluding Jews. It seemed prejudiced to me. Then Dedalus, basically crowns the school-master with a poetic utterance (or unspoken view) (his influence on the language in the chapters where his is the leading view), the effect is the sun flung !
bangles of coins off his shoulders. In chapter 3, first encountering the difficulties of "stream of consciousness", at a certain point, Dedalus says, O, where's a piece of paper, I need to write these ideas. Then he makes an expression, about leaning over, and then apparently rewords it more poetically. Thus, there seems to be an indication that part of the difficulty in following that part of the stream of consciousness is that Dedalus has artistically heightened it. (Hugh Kenner made related comments about the the author's measuring out language skills to his poets, referring partly to "Portrait of an Artist".)
Near the same part of chapter 3, there's a statement starting with "Click" and then the speaker (thinker of the consciousness?) says do you find my writing difficult to understand? After that, the chapter is easier to understand, as though mind has "clicked" and now comprehends. Partly, though, I imagine, the personal experience elements of the stream of consciousness do not continue (in chapter 3) as much as before the "Click" transition.
I had commented about private languages and wondering how significant they could be in "Ulysses". So far, I haven't noticed the made-up words in "Ulysses" that I had expected.
It seemed to me that "knowing how the story goes" took away from the usual experience of reading a book without knowing what it will say. In particular, knowing about the fact of the Bloom's marriage problem makes taking Bloom's thought sequence as received impossible. I keep waiting for him to identify evidence. Mostly what seemed left for me without "hearing the story for the first time" was extraordinary use of language (language that I particularly like :) and I didn't find any of that :)
As far as annotation goes, I noticed that I needed less info than I might have thought. In particular it didn't seem necessary for me to know about the tip in the horse race. Knowing that something is going to happen in relation to that draws my attention to every time the newsboys begin running saying "Extra!". O, they're out to question Bloom about how he knew!
Even so, a dictionary could be neat (could even be a super-dictionary, tuned to the literature it is used with, maybe with options of cross-referencing, number of times word is used, audio pronunciation, pronunciation of words in context).

-----

77) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:00:43 +0000
From: Richard Stack

Greg, in response to this of mine:
> > We are simply unwilling (for reasons it wouild be worth looking into) to
> >trust an annotator to depend directly on his reading of the text in hand,
> >rather than on some independent source. But if an annotator has shown himself
> >to be reliable,
asks:
> "How do we get to the point of seeing any writer as "reliable" if, as you
> say, all information is evaluative, and thus contingent, questionable, etc.?"
and then continues in the same vein:
"If all information and all evaluation are imperfect, and are subject to fair
and accurate (as well as unfair and inaccurate) dissent, then how do we ever
get back to this position of trust and faith you are discussing?"

My reply: I would like to posit two assumptions which I habitually make
about "literature" in order to fashion a reply to these questions.
The first is that literary criticism is, unlike biblical
criticism, continuous with, rather than discontinuous with, the texts that give rise
to it.
The second is that literary scholarship is, (unlike the work of,
say, the encyclopaedist,) subordinated to literary criticism (what Eliot used to
call "appreciation").
What this amounts to is that the border between the literary and the
non-literary is a hazy, difficult area, continually contested. It is, perhaps, the
character of this ongoing contestation which constitutes literature as a distinctive
cultural area. In my view, literature is the large cultural form which represents
that fundamental human activity which we call conversation.
It is unlike any science in that science has an object of study
which is ontologically distinct from the practice of science itself, whereas the
practice of literary criticism is continuous with its object, in that both criticism
and object of criticism fall, potentially at least, within the same field, the field
of literature. A compact way to say this is: criticism is a literary genre and
literary scholarship is an adjunct to criticism, both subordinate to it and
supportive of it, rather than being a distinct activity, like that of the
encyclopaedist.
The product of this amazingly prolific "conversation" that is
literature is, like any other market, a constantly modified sense of values and
hierarchies. In short, the whole point of this ludic undertaking is to establish,
at least for the time being, what it might mean to be reliable. We read for our
pleasure, and we constitute our literature as such as a way of articulating the
character of that pleasure, the articulation being only another form of pleasure.
Thus insofar as criticism or scholarship becomes a purely mechanical performance,
undertaken for commercial reasons (tenure, and so forth), it is rejected and dies,
as does any merely commercial literature.
To sum up: we "buy" criticism (and annotation is simply a miniature
form of criticism) according to the authority it carries with it. Not the mere
authority of a name, to be sure, but the literary authority embodied in its style
and character, and in the other less easily named qualities which it is one of the
jobs of criticism to articulate. Annotation is part of literature, and is to be
judged, ultimately, by the same standards as any other criticism. That is how we
know that something is "reliable".

-----

78) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:54:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 11:00 PM 12/27/98 [sic; 11/27/98], Ricvhard Stack wrote:
>[In commentary,] I would warn against being too complacent about:
> a) our capacity to differentiate between "evaluation" and "information", and
> b) our tendency to view the latter as being inherently more reliable than
> the former.

Of course, nothing is 100% reliable or unquestionable. I guess we are
talking about degrees of difference here. A certain amount of what (at the
risk of being one-upped) we might call "information" is probably
exceptionable only in relatively *small* ways, while other
information/opinion/evaluation might be taken as more exceptionable, in
larger ways, by more people. But yes, nothing is absolutely unexceptionable.
Naturally, all of us should admit, up front, that all issues are matters of
judgment (better or worse judgment -- but always imperfect judgment). All
matters that can be discussed in attempting to shed light on a literary text
are cultural, are (if for a moment I can revive Windelband's late 19th cent.
terms, which come to mind here for some reason) idiographic rather than
nomothetic, i.e., particular and complex rather than simple and subject to
one inalterable law or set of laws. (Windelband was antipositivistically
trying to contrast cultural and historical study with natural science.)

>We are simply unwilling (for reasons it wouild be worth looking into) to
>trust an annotator to depend directly on his reading of the text in hand,
>rather than on some independent source. But if an annotator has shown himself
>to be reliable,

How do we get to the point of seeing any writer as "reliable" if, as you
say, all information is evaluative, and thus contingent, questionable, etc.?

>why should we not, in principle, be prepared to accept his
>reading of a chapter or of the book as a whole? By the same token, if she has
>NOT done so, why should we accept her account of the "facts" ? (It is a matter
>of common experience that it is far easier to attack someone's facts than it is
>to attack their judgements.)

If all information and all evaluation are imperfect, and are subject to fair
and accurate (as well as unfair and inaccurate) dissent, then how do we ever
get back to this position of trust and faith you are discussing? Isn't it
maybe that the more we know about topic x, the less we are willing to agree
with (inevitably imperfect) authority y in every instance, and the less we
are willing to substitute authority y's judgment for our own?

> Literature itself, and certainly the work of JJ, is crammed with such
>passages from fact to evaluation; perhaps in some sense they are what it is
>all about.

Right.

>Why then should we wish to produce a set of purged, antiseptic
>"annotations", pure of all commentary? What a bloodless drag! Pass the Phone
>Book! Tell us what you think is the case without worrying too much whether you
>are stepping over someone's imaginary line.

I think the whole problem is that a useful commentary will contain multiple
elements -- not one to the exclusion of the other. I haven't argued that a
commentary should have only info, no evaluation (though others may have done
so on occasion). I just think it might be a good idea to think about the
arrangement and articulation of both.

>Be assured that we will be quite
>able to distinguish between your quirky ideas and the "facts".

The idea is not for a commentay to say anything it feels like saying any way
it feels like saying it, on the assumption that readers are free, willing,
and able to glean what is "right" from what is "wrong." (If readers are as
imperfect as commentators, it seems they'd be to some extent fallible in
their judgments about good and/or bad commentary, which would always still
be flawed in itself!) The idea of commentary, I guess, would be to give
people assistance, if possible, while minimizing the extent to which users
of commentary material are flummoxed or inadvertantly fed flummery.

>If we can't, we
>should learn to read, for that's what reading is, and if you can't convince us
>that you're reliable and worth reading, we simply won't read you, and no harm
>will be done.

The point is to try to serve as many people as possible as well as possible,
despite the ineradicable fact (sic) that a commentator, in the course of
serving readers of types x, y, and z, can come to be seen by readers of (for
example) type x as, in effect, a proxy for readers of types y and z, whom
readers of type x are unable to keep themselves from detesting. I don't know
how ineliminable a problem this is if people are not tolerant of each
other's needs.

-----

79) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:10:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 07:12 AM 11/28/98 -0800, Jack Kolb wrote:
>any interpretation ought to
>make clear its context (and then, I agree, it isn't patronizing).
>One thinks of the 19th century variorum editions of Shakespeare, which
>attempt to print substantial excepts from almost every piece of criticism
>pertinent to the line; all were clearly labelled by author. This of course
>was undertaken at a time when criticism had not become the Hydra-like
>monster it is today.

Does the proliferation of literary analysis and theory in the second half of
the twentieth century make this kind of thing impossible? While fully
acknowledging the magnitude of what has been published, I'd still have to
say that the magnitude and complexity of all of the "writing about
literature" that exists in our era only makes the project of giving a fairly
clear sense of its varieties even more important and even more useful than
such a project was a century or a century and a half ago.

>Today, it seems to me particularly important to free the reader from
>preconceptions in reading such works as Ulysses. Of course a hypertext
>might include criticism, but in fact I'd prefer an edition free from such.
>Certainly there's enough "factual" annotative information to occupy a full
>CD-ROM.
>The criticism should come separately.
I think what all of us who have spent a lot of time with books (myself
included) may not yet appreciate fully how the meaning of "separate" changes
in a hypermedia environment, where (for example) 2 gig of very diverse
material fits into a container (my add-on hard-drive) that is the size of a
paperback romance, with whole areas of information all copresent that have
little or nothing to do with each other and needn't be accessed together.
Meanwhile, I can access things on computers a thousand or ten thousand miles
away within ten or fifteen seconds, or less. If some of us prefer to think
of commentary and criticism as belonging in several "separate" books, maybe
we should focus mentally on the various ("separate"?) directories and
subdirectories and various "pages" in a hypermedia project, and think of
them as being like separate articles or separate books.

-----

80) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:34:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 08:58 AM 11/29/98, Murray J. Gross wrote:
>Since we agree that it is difficult if not impossible to separate
>"descriptive from interpretative notes" and since we should agree that
>we want the Groden Project to be effective and not just a bare
>minimalist set of hints ñ what is it that we should do?
>Not a new idea: mix the two. Add as much interpretation as you think
>necessary. We may be addressing first-time readers of what is clearly a
>difficult book. If they are at the stage of being able to read such a
>book, then, presumably, they have developed some critical sense and can
>tell the difference.

Yes.... This is the "separation" issue again. In a hypermedia document,
things that would never be published in the same place (for reasons of
space, as well as due to differences in audience) are in the most basic
sense copresent, i.e., are never more than a few "clicks" away from each
other. Even if one created two completely "separate" arenas within a DVD or
a website, what would keep a user from accessing both? Somehow, it's not
just a question of keeping things utterly separate. Even if one created two
completely separate CD's or DVD's (i.e., physically distinct items,
available separately), what would keep someone from obtaining and using both
in looking at the same passage in Ulysses.
It's less "apartheid" to provide various kinds and levels of
info/anno/evaluation, and leave people in peace to create their own
experience. They will anyway, actually, regardless of how many "walls" one
might try (for better or worse) to create.

>The reader would also know that these
>interpretations are not the only possible ones and that Groden's Disk is
>circa 2005. Why should the new reader, or for that matter any reader,
>have to boot himself up all alone; give him a loaded CD and invite him
>to join the Joyce community. He need not be trapped in an old
>interpretation, he can use it critically to lead to deeper and, if not
>better, at least different analyses. If anyone thinks that we can
>exhaust the book, think again.

And these kinds of premises for the project would be carefully but
forthrightly stated in an introduction or overview, laying out what the
project is intended to do (and not intended to do), and how, and why, and
where, and for what kinds of readers/users, etc.

-----

81) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 01:08 PM 11/29/98 -0500, Michael Groden wrote:
>...hypermedia, I hope, will let us make some useful distinctions without
>having to eliminate anything. If we call a fact an interpretation, or vice
>versa, we will err in where we place some words or how we link to and from
>them, but at least the words will be there. And it is easier to fix a
>botched link than a printed book or article page.

Right -- inclusion, clarity, and *flexibility* are probably the main
qualities to be borne in mind.

-----

82) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:47:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

A brief comment below some concise clips from two posts:

At 05:45 PM 11/29/98, Andrew H. Blom wrote, quoting Goethe:
>"The most important thing would be to realize that everything 'factual' is
>already theory."
>[...]My suggestion would be to turn this to further advantage by impressing
>upon the reader the (merely) consensual nature of the "factual" commentary
>which is offered. This could be achieved in a way like the following.
>If it is feasible to do so, I would set out to assemble a review panel ---
>perhaps one which is going to vary from chapter to chapter, but in any
>case, something analogous to the Usage Panel of the American Heritage
>Dictionary....
>Now, I don't suggest including information about percentages unless
>something is a contested point....

Then, at 10:06 AM 11/30/98, Michael Groden replied:
>This could be very useful, and the computer can perhaps go beyond the
>rather awkward percentage numbers (that both suggest a kind of scientific
>validity and a, to me, unfortunate degree of specificity). A visual design
>like a color scale or a pie chart or something like that could indicate
>percentages.

Andrew and Mike -- I think this is a fine idea, and it would have the added
advantage of helping future literary/cultural/intellectual historians obtain
a more nuanced sense of the "lay of the land" at the turn of the millennium.
I often find myself wondering just how representative or unrepresentative
(or some combination of both), i.e. just how in or out of one mainstream or
another, a given cultural figure from the past was, within his/her
contemporary context. Those who wonder about such questions in the future
will be greatly assisted by being able to examine a wide array of thinking
brought conveniently together.

-----

83) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 21:37:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

Fritz Senn's meaty contribution, at or near the end of the "I. AM. A."
thread, perhaps provides a good place to sum up a good deal of what I
learned from everyone who contributed to the "gloss" thread. F.S. also
explicitly invited discussion of general "glossatorial" matters in
connection with a specific locus/crux such as "I. AM. A." Ergo, comments
below....

At 11:01 AM 12/8/98 +0100, Fritz Senn wrote:
>I. AM. A.
>There seem to be two aspects.
>. . . [Letter 75]
>What of the above (and from all the contributions) should become part of an annotation of the
>passage, in which wording, which which certainty, at what level of hierarchic distance from the
>text?

Picking up from the final paragraph above, let me start with a few general
hypotheses about how one might arrange and deploy "info" and "commentary" of
various kinds, for readers with various wants and needs....
Any local word or phrase in the book (e.g., "I. AM. A.") could take a reader
seeking something beyond the text in one of two basic directions.
The two possible directions (portals, pathways, whatever image seems
appropriate -- I know some of the potential terms already have established
meanings in hypertext/internet/WWW environments) would be something like:
(1) first time readers
(2) more experienced or longer term readers
[(1) and (2) should be defined not in "professional" terms, but in terms of
a reader's current relationship with the text -- professors whose speciality
is not Joyce may well be in category (1), and some of the most sophisticated
readers of Joyce have no special FDA "academia" stamp on their flank]
If one takes direction (1), the first thing one would come to would be the
kinds of things we might refer to as "thinking questions and hints" --
clear, careful, non-condescending questions to think about and mental
avenues to explore. No spoilers, unless one chooses to link in a "spoiler"
direction beyond the initial page of "thinking questions and hints."
If one takes direction (2), the first thing one would come to would be the
kinds of things we might refer to as "ground zero commentary" -- clear,
careful presentation of ideas that at least aspire to status as basic
"information" that would be useful to someone thinking about the locus in
question, but witten in full awareness of the fact that all "information"
already involves some sense of priorities and some amount of evaluation
simply by dint of what is said (and how), and what is not said.
The initial page that is reached both via option (1) and option (2) would
"end" (?) with a list of multiple options leading to (A) the other option,
if for some reason one wanted to switch over at that point, (B) various more
detailed kinds of "information" and comments, (C) various analytical,
theoretical, and hypercriticism options, and (D) other types of links as
called for by the local context. The exact structure and order of the list
might well differ from locus to locus, as called for by the local context
(i.e., the passage in question), though there should be some effort made to
ensure basic consistency of presentation throughout.
In the case of "I. AM. A.", the specific contents might be something like:

(1) Thinking Questions and Hints:
Does Bloom have something specific in mind to write in the sand at this
moment? Or is he just doodling, and never actually formulates the end of the
sentence? In either case, what do you think about his state of mind and
motivations at this moment?
If he does have something specific in mind to write, what might it be? "I.
AM. A. {what}"?
Even if Bloom doesn't have any specific "completion" in mind as he writes,
what is the book leaving us to fill in as the end of the unfinished
sentence? One clear solution? Several possibilities, clear or unclear?
Think about the solution or possibilies you come up with. What might it/they
imply about Bloom, the story, the ideas brought up by the book, etc.?
[Etc.]

(2) Ground Zero Commentary:
[A brief presentation of the basic possibilities proposed in connection with
the "I. AM. A." phrase, written carefully and concisely, and presenting all
possibilities, perhaps arranged with an eye to thematic coherence. Perhaps
the strongest or more basic suggestions would be listed earlier, and the
more specialized or speculative suggestions later. If there is too much
material to fit into one screen/page for this much-discussed crux, a
concise, basic discussion would mention each position and would also allow
the interested reader to open a more detailed presentation of each position
at will.
Of course, Fritz Senn's clear and succinct discussion above already contains
a good deal of what might go into (2).

>From (1), one could link to (2) if one wanted to. Both (1) and (2) would
contain links to various passages of published analysis, new
"hypercriticism," and theoretical background/context/etc.

Would that kind of basic structure allow everyone to be served according to
their needs and wants? Maybe, maybe not. Additions, criticisms, etc. etc.
welcome. In fact, there are more details to be gone into about this, but
this is certainly enough for now....

-----

84) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:12:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing

At 10:57 AM 12/4/98 -0800, Jack Kolb wrote:
>I guess I feel about hypertext editions the same way I feel about the net:
>(hypothetically) there should be no restrictions. By all means, offer
>criticism; if possible: perhaps, the more the better. The worst of the
>alternatives is to offer any ONE interpretation. But ideally there should
>be some attempt (difficult as that sometimes is) to separate annotative from
>interpretive material. As an editor of a 19th century writer's poetry and
>prose, I have no problem with separating the categories (and, in my case,
>rigidly excluding the latter). I'm not sure I see the difficulty in the
>case of Joyce's novel. Could I get some more specific instances?

My just-sent reply to Fritz Senn's post is, in part, an answer to Jack
Kolb's concise presentation, just above, of many of the relevant issues and
questions raised on the "gloss" thread in the second half of Nov. and early Dec.

-----

END

To Top of Page
To a condensed version of these letters.
To Michael Groden's Web Page