Niia Conklin, Maggie Kennell, Juli Mora, Aubrey Stout Peters, Adanna Wolf

Have you ever looked at someone’s handwriting and thought, “Can he, himself, even read that?” Well, after attempting to read Thoreau’s handwriting on the Walden manuscripts, you will definitely be considering this question. Thoreau wrote many versions of Walden, editing each one before settling on the final copy. As a result, numerous manuscript pages exist from Walden. Through a class project, my group studied a couple of his manuscripts from “Sounds,” with help from the fluid text edition of Walden, and concluded that Thoreau ultimately edits his work for clarity, meaning he tries to weed out all unnecessary passages. First, we examined the lengthy first sentence of “Sounds” in Version A where Thoreau is trying to gather his thoughts. Afterwards, we moved on to comparing Version A to Version D where we noticed Thoreau paring down the first section for readability and clarity. Our story begins with Version A.

Version A

First Sentence

The first sentence of “Sounds” in Version A, shown above, is significantly long and–partly due to its length–has numerous edits throughout, including deletions and additions as Thoreau was figuring out what he wanted to say. Since the deletions are the most noticeable, let’s begin there.

Deletions

The first deletion is easy to understand. “Or rather the expression” is removed from “we are apt to forget the language, or rather the expression….” Simply put, using the word “language” implies communication, which is how people express themselves. Because of this, using “language” and “expression” becomes repetitive, making one unnecessary. At the bottom of the manuscript, is the second deletion: “and speech itself is partial.” This phrase is unclear and underdeveloped. The original piece reads, “for the tongue is only an accidental organ of speech even of this written language which it has helped to establish serving equally the palate, and speech itself is partial….” Adding “and speech itself is partial” does not connect to or develop the previous discussion surrounding the tongue. Instead, the phrase introduces a new point that feels out of place, so Thoreau decided to take it out. In addition, on the manuscript page the word “uttering” only has two little pencil marks at the end of it instead of a blatant strike-through, as recorded in the fluid-text version. It is hard to determine Thoreau’s intentions. When the passage is read with the word “uttering,” it reiterates the act of talking, which does fit in with the “tongue” section since “uttering” emphasizes Thoreau’s point that speaking is the precursor to writing. However, when reading the passage without the word “uttering,” the transition into the next section is more abrupt. While “and still lips” continues to fit into the mouth imagery Thoreau is writing, “uttering” serves as a reminder to that image before moving on. To continue, the next set of changes to explore are Thoreau’s pencil additions.

Pencil Additions

The pencil additions in the first sentence tend to be small changes here and there. In fact, the first three occur in the very beginning of the sentence: “Yet after all, while we are confined to books though the most select & classic and study only particular written languages which are themselves but dialects or provincialisms, we are apt to forget the language….” Based on sequential order, “select &” is the first pencil addition in the text. By affixing “select &” to “classic,” Thoreau creates a more distinguished and sophisticated feeling. This is because “select” narrows the definition of what written works are considered classics by implying that age does not automatically secure classic status. Similarly, the addition of “written” to describe “languages” simply specifies what Thoreau is talking about. Because the word languages usually refer to spoken languages, Thoreau needed to specify that he was talking about written languages here. Furthermore, adding “which are themselves but dialects” goes hand-in-hand with Thoreau’s commentary of how verbal language preceded written language. For one thing, dialects vary by region and simply demonstrate how to say the same thing but in different ways, as alluded to by Thoreau writing “dialects or provincialisms.” Essentially, Thoreau is arguing that everyone has a different writing style, meaning that their language is the same in theory but different in practice. To end, the last pencil addition is whithin this section: “which only is copious, for the tongue is only an accidental organ of speech even of this written language which it has helped to establish serving equally the palate.” Again, it appears that Thoreau is purposely stressing the written language through the pencil addition “even of this written language which it has helped to establish.” If we read the full passage without the addition, it would only imply verbal communication as it mentions “an accidental organ of speech” and “the palate.” Thus, “even of this written language which it has helped to establish” is needed for clarification. While the pencil additions tend to be small, they are plentiful and powerful in changing the meaning of Thoreau’s writing. On the flip side, there is only one pen addition in the entire first sentence.

The Pen Addition

In pen, Thoreau added a section that can stand by itself: “and still lips were the methods which it had established necessary or sufficient for the silent expression of truth by instilling us.” By including this section, Thoreau is extending his mouth imagery, written just before, by going beyond the tongue to the lips. Instead of reporting that “silence is mirrored in closed lips,” Thoreau explains this concept in a longer, more flowery section to match the tone of the mouth part. Ultimately, by putting these two sections together, Thoreau is contrasting the difference between speaking and staying silent as demonstrated by the tongue being “an accidental organ of speech” while the lips are “the silent expression of truth by instilling us.” In the end, this pen part is added to contrast the mouth section, helping Thoreau to explore this concept between written and spoken language.

Therefore, we believe that the extensive first sentence of “Sounds” in Version A has numerous deletions and additions as Thoreau was trying to figure out what to say.

However, while the changes Thoreau makes in Version A make logical sense, Version D changes dramatically–-especially considering its length–-when comparing it to Versions A, B, and C. The first example of this is the “still lips” section.

Version D

Still Lips

Nevertheless, before examining “still lips” in Version D, it must be looked at in Version A, shown above, since it is one of the largest revisions on that page. In addition, this line, which is in the middle of the first paragraph, carries over several versions: “…and still lips were the methods which it had established necessary or sufficient for the silent expression of the truth by instilling us.” Because this section is written tinily and messily, it is possibly the most difficult line to read on the physical manuscript page, which, in turn, makes it difficult to transcribe and understand what Thoreau is trying to convey. Even more confusing, he carried over this section from Version A to B to C, and finally, in Version D, this line was removed completely. Throughout “Sounds” Thoreau edits a lot; however, the jump from Version C to D shows the deletion of a large portion of material, including the omission of the “still lips” section. Furthermore, in Version D, there are no physical deletion marks of the “still lips” portion. In fact, that particualr part does not show up in this manuscript version at all. To explain this, we believe Thoreau’s goal was to make this chapter more concise and understandible for other readers, and this is why he outright deletes so much material. Replacing flowery language for straightfoward language automatically aids readers’ overall comprehension. As mentioned previously, the words “still lips” adds to the mouth imagery Thoreau was using, specifically the part where the tongue is described as an “organ of speech.” The “still lips” portion expanded on that idea artistically. Despite this, once Thoreau revised this paragraph of “Sounds” to create Version D, his goal shifted towards succinctness and clarity. Although his imagery is expressive, like “the language which the soul of a man hears rather than his ears,” in Version D Thoreau focuses more on how he can accurately portray his thoughts to his audience.

With a More Copious

“Sounds” Version A

“Sounds” Version D

This mindset definitely carried over to his subsequent changes. One of the most important changes between Version A and Version D of “Sounds” is this sentence from Version A: “With a more copious hearing or understanding of what is published, the views ever fresh which the breezes waft to us, and all things exhale the present languages and all that they express or can express will be forgotten.” There are many times throughout Thoreau’s writing that he uses verbose language. After tweaking this part in previous versions, he deleted it in Version D by surrounding the section in a box with wavy lines down it as pictured above. On the Version D manuscript, there is no indication that the section was moved or reused in a different way. Be that as it may, it appears that Thoreau could delete this section so assuredly because he already touched upon these points earlier in the passage in a way that is more to the point and easier to understand. Here is that previous passage: “Which alone is copious and standard, and an adequate expression of the meaning with which the universe is fraught.” As a result, the Version A and Version D passages explain the importance of reading comprehension, but the passage in Version D is shorter and more seriously explained. Because Thoreau already discussed the points in the “with a more copious…” section, he could confidently delete the sentence in Version D. That way his overall writing would be more understandable to his readers.

Final Thoughts

Over the course of examining Versions A and D of “Sounds” it becomes clear that Thoreau edits his writing a lot. Just by looking at the first sentence in Version A demonstrates this as Thoreau was trying to figure out what he wanted to say. Then, when comparing Versions A and D with each other, specifically the “still lips” and “with a more copious” sections, Thoreau’s editing appears to have shifted from editing ideas to editing for clarity. Therefore, throughout Thoreau’s manuscripts, it becomes clear that he ultimately edits for succinctness and clarity by deleting unnecessary passages. While completing this project, the most important takeaway for our group were the obstacles and triumphs we encountered. The first challenge was finding the chapter we wanted to focus on. Originally, we considered working on a passage from “Reading,” but “Sounds” ended up being a better fit since it had the most changes of the two, which we discovered by looking at the fluid-text edition of Walden. All in all, transcribing Thoreau’s handwriting was the hardest obstacle to overcome because his handwriting is loopy cursive that is not commonly used today. In addition, Thoreau would add sections inbetween lines, making them cluttered. From working on the transcription, we ran into another problem–the TEI file. Since we were not accustomed to its specific formatting and how to properly record Thoreau’s edits, it was difficult to complete. However, the first triumph we had was determining how to record the box with wavy lines in the TEI file, as suggested by our professor. Over everything else, our most significant triumph is how we were able to work together smoothly. To our relief we worked well together in our respective jobs, and everyone was willing to help others with any extra tasks. In this way, we were able to manage the different aspects of the project efficiently despite the growing pains along the way.

As I found myself wandering in the woods, it came to my attention the effect it has on my body. How often do we experience life without considering its effect on us physically? Every piece of information is input that makes me feel alive. The smells… The sounds… The tectures… Their forces combine to wrap me in the wonders of nature.

I breathe deeply. I am always surprised how the air changes when surrounded by greenery. There is nothing like it, for it is as fresh as the morning dew. It is clean. It is crisp. It is pure. Perhaps the autumnal scent of the leaves creates the pleasing aroma of the air. I never tire of this scent. With every breath it refreshes me.

As I continue to walk through the forest, I notice the sound of the leaves next. Their tune fades in and out. Sometimes a dried pile of them evoke a satisfying crunch under my feet. Other times the dampness of the leaves squashes any hope of the delightful crunch that follows me around, announcing my existence. In the respites of leaves lies the squelching mud. Squish. Squish. Squish. Its sound makes me recoil a bit as I navigate through the mud trap. No matter how carefully I step, it decorates the bottoms and sides of my shoes.

My wandering path takes me past a soft, trickling stream. As the water skips and hops across the sticks and grass, small bubbles appear and pop. I can not help but stop for a moment. There is nothing quite as comforting as the quiet pitter-patter of cascading water. To add to the water’s music, an unidentified bird happily sings in a loopdeloop manner–its voice moving steadily up and down, up and down. I enjoy its cheerful song, wishing it to show itself, but it is hidden in the forest somewhere–the mysterious musician. “Why must the creatures always hide themselves?” I wonder disappointedly. After this unexpected concert I absentmindedly continue without a care in the world until I hear a loud snap. It startles me. I look down. I stepped on a good-sized stick. My orneriness kicks in, and I purposely step on it again to hear the satisfying crack. Farther down the way, I see little tufts of green leaves. They almost look like blades of grass except when you pick them a sharp, strong scent catches your nose immediately. It is wild garlic! I repeatedly smell it, captivated by its intense scent.

On my way out of the forest, I am careful to navigate around the large clonglomerations of a hanging dead vine. A single shoot reaches toward the earth. I shake it to be polite. Its body shakes and scrapes against each other. Out of curiosity, I tug at it. Every shoot of the vine remains in place, which is preferable since it would have fallen on me if it had been unstable. As if to scold me, I hear a quick, high-pitched tch tch tch tch. I quickly look around. Again, I can not find the creature responsible for the noise. I believe it is an angry squirrel, but alas, I can not confirm it. On the bright side, in trying to find this mysterious creature, I stumble upon some strange-looking seeds. They are white, fluffy snowballs. They are so tempting. I just had to squish them. They feel like the down used for pillows–soft and bouncy.

I sigh, satisfied by the peace the forest has provided me. It has remembered me. It has sung to me. It has touched me.

I was pretty nervous to take this class because my strengths do not include technology or math. Coding requires both! However, I have been pleasantly surprised. I am coding and enjoying it! Now I understand my computer more fully and the impact technology has on the humanities.

Learning about My Computer

I had no idea you could do so much with your computer because I assumed that my Windows interface held all its features. I did not question it, and the majority of the time, people interact with technology in this way. For me, I never felt inclined to investigate coding because it always seemed too hard. After all, hackers in tv shows often have multiple screens with computer languages on them that might as well be foreign. Even when learning about technology, we are taught about how to use it regarding programs like Word or pdf or email. The focus is never on efficiency. Education simply focuses on necessity when teaching technology since it drives much of our world. However, this concept is slowly starting to change for me.

Gitbash and Virtual Studio Code

The more I learn how to use Gitbash and Virtual Studio Code (VS Code), the more I realize that computers hide features under the surface that most people do not understand or notice. I had never heard of Gitbash or VS Code before a couple months ago. Sure, I may not be doing crazy things, but fiddling around in Gitbash and VS Code has made me feel like a hacker. Not only have I learned how to navigate, create, and delete files in Gitbash, I also learned that VS Code can be used to create webpages. I was even able to play around with webpage formatting. As a result, I have come to realize that computers can be used for so much more than what is originally installed in Windows. Their mystery is fading.

Computers and the Humanities

Transcribing Manuscripts

I always viewed computers as a detriment to the humanities. Although computers do spread information, they erase physical copies of books and manuscripts. Now I understand that making manuscripts digital, like Thoreau’s, can actually assist researchers in understanding documents. When I worked on transcribing manuscripts on Douglass Day, I played around with the toggles to adjust the zoom and brightness of documents. Without those features, I wouldn’t have been able to complete transcribing certain documents. In addition, online documents allow more people to help with humanities’s projects. It helps to get the word out about it. On Douglass Day the site was crashing due to so many people trying to transcribe on it!

Website Creation

In addition, coding allows people to create websites. For one thing, if writers are able to code themselves, they can present their work on a website in the way they wish to present it, instead of relying on others to execute their vision. This gives more artistic freedom to writers while allowing them to spread the word on their projects. Again, it also makes it so that more people can find and contribute to humanities’ projects like the zooniverse.org website, which collects data for projects, ranging from the sciences to the humanities.

Disadvantages

Despite the advantages, using technology in the humanities does cause some harm. For one thing, when people write using computers, their editing is not captured. Decisions about word choice or sentence and paragraph placement are simply lost. This thought process is intruiging to researchers because it provides insight into writers’ minds. How do they work? How do they edit? How do they think? Unfortunately, technology makes it more difficult to examine modern writers.

Why Is This Important?

Learning about the advantages and disadvantages of using technology in the humanities is helpful to me because in the future I want to write. I am still figuring out what exactly I would like to focus on, but in this instance, the subject does not matter since technology has penetrated the humanities and will continue to do so. Thus, learning about technology in the humanities is pertinent to my future field. Who knows? Perhaps one day I can create a website for my creative writing!

Conclusion

In the end, learning to understand my computer more fully and to appreciate the impact it has on the field of humanities has helped me to realize that technology is not always bad. Like everything else, there is a time and a place for technology in the humanities. For one thing, it enables researchers to study manuscripts that were too difficult to read before, gathering valuable information. In addition, learning how to code your own website is important so that your projects are seen by more people! So, technology is valuable to the humanities in certain areas.