Author: Anna Enright

Anna Enright, Avery Wolfe, Fiona Green

Introduction:

Over the course of Thoreau’s extensive revisions of Walden, there is a chance for readers to analyze Thoreau’s thought process as he develops, rewrites, and significantly alters the text. Throughout the entirety of this year we have examined multiple different instances where Thoreau has made changes, both big and small, to his manuscript. Through our project we have chosen to examine a paragraph within the Chapter “Brute Neighbors”. Paragraph 11 from “Brute Neighbors” transforms over time and eventually becomes a symbolic exploration of Thoreau’s connection with nature. We looked at multiple manuscript pages, specifically from versions A and G, while also making some references to version E. Like the rest of his novel, Thoreau hones in on the smaller more insignificant aspects of nature, and creates metaphorical meaning for each small part that many may take for granted. As we watched and analyzed how this paragraph changes over time we noticed how initially, Thoreau was focused on listing observations; animals live unseen around him. Later he changes this observation into a philosophical argument

Process:

Our group went back and forth multiple times on the focus of our project. When looking at the chapters, we knew we wanted to do “Brute Neighbors” as there’s a lot of content and we knew we could make a claim based on the multiple revisions across the chapter. Our original idea was to look at paragraphs 16 and 17, writing about how revisions Thoreau made to better personify animals. However, we quickly found that the lack of revisions in that paragraph would make the project difficult, as we would have to juxtapose the personifications with another part in the book where he also personifies animals. It wasn’t until the second or third day that we decided to focus on paragraph 11 instead, shifting our analysis to how Thoreau turns his observations into a philosophical argument. This direction felt more cohesive and better suited to the revisions we found in the chapter.

One of the biggest challenges we faced while searching for the manuscript pages was locating the “E” revision of our paragraph. The manuscript search tool didn’t return any results for this version, leading us to assume it didn’t exist. It wasn’t until we spoke with Dr. Schacht in class and he looked through the manuscript that he found the image hidden at the bottom of an unlabeled page in the “E” draft. His methodical approach of looking through the unmarked pages made all the difference in uncovering what we needed. Without his guidance, we might have missed it entirely.

Another difficulty arose during encoding. When working on the “G” revision, we encountered a part where Thoreau added text above the middle of a sentence. While the final version of Walden places the addition after the sentence, we weren’t sure whether to encode it based on the manuscript’s surface structure or to adjust it for readability. After discussing the issue with Dr. Schacht, he clarified that either approach was acceptable. Ultimately, we chose to encode the revision in a way that made the changes clear and understandable, prioritizing logical flow over adherence to the manuscript’s visual layout.

Interpretation/Meaning:

Through working closely with Walden, we have been introduced to his descriptions of animals and observations of nature. However, through focusing on several revisions of paragraph 11 in “Brute Neighbors”, we have been able to see how these are deliberate choices with significant meaning, rather than simple observations. Across versions A, E, G, and the published text of Walden, Thoreau changes these observations into a philosophical argument that the natural world exists independently of humans.

In Version A, Thoreau’s earliest version, he focuses mainly on observing nature and life. He notes that animals live “secret” lives in the woods, that parallels human life. At this stage, his writing reads more as a journal entry rather than anything deep and philosophical. He begins with an observation of a raccoon with no clear indication of a deeper meaning. However, by the time he gets to Version E, he revises this by introducing section 11a. This reframes the passage by opening it with a philosophical lens. He makes the statement that creatures live “wild and free though secret in the woods” which shifts the focus from description to interpretation. This introduces the juxtaposition of freedom and secrecy. While he views creatures as having freedom in nature, much of their lives are “hidden” from human life.

Thoreau strengthens this idea through his diction and imagery. Like when emphasizing the otter’s growth “to four feet long”, but simultaneously acknowledging that it remains unseen. He later revises this idea to make it more clear by adding “perhaps without any human being getting a glimpse of him”. This reinforces the distinction between animals and humans. Specifically how animals and nature do not purely exist for human observation.

By the final published version, Thoreau’s revisions clearly transform the passage into an argument rather than simple observation. Section 11a sets up the reader’s understanding of nature’s autonomy. The expansion of the paragraph, growing into multiple sections, shows how Thoreau’s understanding of the natural world developed over time. Over time, his writing mirrors not what he sees, but what he believes. Through this, he is clearly able to express his belief that nature thrives independently, whether or not humans are there to witness it.

Source- Website

Intro

After working closely with Walden by Henry David Thoreau for the better part of this semester, I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection. One area in particular that I have reflected on is my attention. Specifically, what I choose to pay attention to and what takes my attention unintentionally. Even in the 1800’s, Thoreau warned readers about the advancements of technology stealing our attention from what truly matters. I always knew the digital world took up a lot of my attention, but it wasn’t until paying super close attention to my habits this past week that I realized just how much of it it actually takes up.

Data

One area where I already knew my attention was compromised was in the classroom. I try to pay attention, and some days are better than others, but the moment I get bored or see that I have a text, I pull out my phone. What I didn’t realize, though, was how often I do this per class. So, I decided to take note of every time I pick up my phone during class… and the data shocked me.

Every day (apart from Friday, when I only have class), I have two classes that are about an hour and fifteen minutes long. After averaging my data, I found that I pick up my phone about twenty-one times per day of classes. I also kept track of which app I tend to go on, and it was almost always Snapchat. I also noticed a trend that I pick up my phone more in my classes on Mondays and Wednesdays than I do on other days of the week. This is likely because that my second class on Tuesdays and Thursdays doesn’t allow phones to be out. Then, on Fridays, I only have one class, so there’s simply less time.

Realization

After seeing just how often I check my phone during class, I started paying attention to what actually leads me to pick it up. I soon realized that most of the time, I don’t even do it for a specific reason. Yes, sometimes I see a notification and check it because of that, but the majority of the time, I just pick it up out of habit. It’s almost like I expect something to be there to entertain me. Also, these “quick checks” quickly turn into falling down a rabbit hole of scrolling and missing parts of the lecture.

Analysis

In reflection of what William James says about how our experience is about what we “agree to attend to”, I originally thought that my phone was something I chose to give my attention to. But after this realization, I feel as though it is more of a reaction than a decision. My boredom in class feels like something that can instantly be “fixed” by the apps on my phone, since they constantly offer notifications and distractions. Instead of completely “living my life” based on what I want to focus on, my experience is constantly being interrupted and shaped by these small, digital distractions.

Connection/Reflection

This connects to Thoreau’s warning that new technologies can act as “pretty toys” that distract us from more meaningful things. In my case, my phone is something that repeatedly pulls me away from being fully present, especially in situations where my attention should be focused elsewhere, like class. What stood out to me is that this distraction doesn’t feel extreme in the moment, but when I look at it over time, it adds up in a way that clearly impacts how I spend my time and what I actually take in.

After noticing all of this, I would like to say that I’m going to completely change my habits, but realistically, I don’t think that will happen right away. However, I do think that being aware of how often I am pulled away from what I’m doing is a step toward having more control over my attention. Even just recognizing that these distractions are not always a conscious choice makes me more aware of when it’s happening. Moving forward, I think I’ll at least be more intentional about when I allow myself to get distracted, rather than letting it happen automatically.

Note: I used ChatGPT to help structure this post and improve clarity, but the ideas and reflections are my own.

Background:

While I unfortunately missed class on Douglass Day due to a doctor’s appointment, I still had the opportunity to participate in the transcribe-a-thon on my own time. Honestly, before this, I wasn’t at all aware of the Colored Conventions movement. Though it is entirely possible I learned about it in History class at some point and wasn’t paying attention, (History is not my strong suit). However, I am so glad that I have become educated on such an important movement now.

Biggest Takeaway:

I am so grateful to have been able to participate in preserving such an important part of history. Being able to transcribe primary sources from the 1800’s campaigning for civil and human rights, so that they can still be learned about today, is a huge privilege. It sounds basic, but the idea of maintaining history has been the biggest takeaway for me. There are probably so many important movements and historical moments that have been lost along the way because people didn’t have access to transcribed or preserved documents. While some people may argue against digitalizing everything, it allows items that can easily be lost to stay alive forever. That is a big positive in terms of digital media. While nothing is guaranteed, it is way more challenging to lose or destroy a digital record than a physical one. Especially with overlooked historical moments such as this, it will allow for this history to never be lost.

I have worked with many digitized historical documents throughout my time as a student, but never really thought about the work that goes into it. Especially with technology now, if I need to digitize something I’ve handwritten, I can open my camera app, have it scan what I wrote, and copy and paste it into a document. Due to this, I feel as though I may have been a bit naive toward the process of transcribing documents. However, it is a real task that needs to occur for these documents to be preserved digitally, and it is a task that requires a lot of work, precision, and patience. I have grown a great appreciation for those who do this for a living as it is a very tedious job.

I often only have thought about the job of transcribing in the sense of translation. Like, if a document was written in Spanish and needed to be available in English as well. However, it makes a lot of sense to transcribe old documents to digitize them. Especially if they are hand-written documents, even if the technology to simply scan text and copy and paste it had always been available, it likely wouldn’t transcribe correctly due to being messy, worn-out, or just generally unreadable. I can see how this could be even more challenging as a career to try to decipher what had been written in old, cursive, messy handwriting or worn-out papers.

Connection:

It reminds me of our chat with Beth Witherell when she talked about the challenge of understanding handwriting in her job as editor-in-chief of the Princeton version of Walden. While she acknowledged that it is a difficult task, she also provided a few ways in which she makes it manageable when working with manuscripts dating back to the mid-19th century. She explained that working with others is always helpful as two heads are better than one. One person may see something one way, while the other may see it differently. Or maybe one person is better at deciphering old-fashioned cursive than the other. Whatever it is, working with someone else is more likely to lead to a correct transcription.

However, the other tip she provided was the one that stood out to me more. She shared that researching the time period that the document was written is very beneficial as well. Specifically dissecting the language used during that time. This is so that she can keep an eye out for slang or words we rarely see now. Also, she said it helps to know as much as possible about the author and their writing style. With knowledge of both of these areas, deciphering the text will be easier as the transcriber can make predictions and inferences based on what they already know.

Reflection:

Luckily, the document I transcribed was pretty easy to transcribe. It was typewritten, so the only difficulty was really certain areas that had faded or become worn out. Overall, it was an enjoyable and satisfying process. It also feels really good to know you’re contributing to preserving important historical moments.