Aristophanes - Week 8

[bailsy6]

I added updated documentation for Wasps including the verse numbers. If it still doesn't look right, I may need some help figuring out what to do with it. Finished reading/classifying Clouds and once the spreadsheet gets the once-over I will upload the rest of the commentary (I want to be sure the documentation of the decisions actually match the final decisions).

[bailsy6]

I might change the criteria for the "fun" score. After going through both plays, it feels like the -1 and -2 classifications are unnecessary, and do not accurately reflect the function of the score. So the proposed new categories would be: 2: Very fun. The line is mostly for entertainment or a laugh. Possibly relies on the audience’s understanding of a certain politician, event, etc. to make sense. 1: Fun. The line has unnecessary aspects intended only for style, but still contains a fair amount of plot relevance. 0: Neutral. The line is straightforward and is intended to advance the plot, lacking unnecessary quips.

[ChiaraPalladino]

I added updated documentation for Wasps including the verse numbers. If it still doesn't look right, I may need some help figuring out what to do with it. Finished reading/classifying Clouds and once the spreadsheet gets the once-over I will upload the rest of the commentary (I want to be sure the documentation of the decisions actually match the final decisions).

@bailsy6 I didn't realize that you had not added the file extension to the documents, that's why they were looking wonky. Here is what I did on Wasps:

• Added the .md extension so that it appears with pretty formatting. This is necessary for all text documents, otherwise the computer does not know how it is supposed to open it and will only display a wall of text. I have also done this with Clouds.
• I have added some formatting that would make searching and referencing the various occurrences clear. You can copy this on the Clouds documentation as well, for consistency, and of course revise it as you like. I have also taken the liberty of suggesting a possible structure with "context", "explanation", and "sentiment", to better distinguish the pertinent comments.
• In bold, there are my comments as to specific edits that are needed. In general, you need to quote the lines or just the pertinent expression, and give a short explanation of the context, where that is relevant. I have done this for the first couple of entries.

[ChiaraPalladino]

I might change the criteria for the "fun" score. After going through both plays, it feels like the -1 and -2 classifications are unnecessary, and do not accurately reflect the function of the score. So the proposed new categories would be: 2: Very fun. The line is mostly for entertainment or a laugh. Possibly relies on the audience’s understanding of a certain politician, event, etc. to make sense. 1: Fun. The line has unnecessary aspects intended only for style, but still contains a fair amount of plot relevance. 0: Neutral. The line is straightforward and is intended to advance the plot, lacking unnecessary quips.

I agree on this. It didn't occur to me that two negative scores were unnecessary but that's a very good point. Go ahead and update the documentation.