For this post, I’d like you to reflect on the process and product of the annotated edition that you created together. As usual, I expect 400-800 words, but I would like you to address the following (either in essay form or, if you like, in a list):
How successful was the project? How might it help a novice reader of the text? How might it be improved, either in terms of its aims or its execution of those aims? What insight do you have into what “real” editors do when they prepare an annotated edition (e.g., our Norton edition of Melville)?
What did you learn from creating your own annotations? How did your exploration of intertexts like Delano’s narrative, etc. inform your reading of Benito Cereno?
What did you learn from reading everyone else’s annotations? How is reading our edition different from reading the text in the Norton?
Knowing what you know now, how would you approach the project differently? You might think about different research parameters (especially in light of all the different ideas we voted on last week), a different platform (e.g., a more formal, book-like mode of presentation rather than the “layer” of annotations that hypothes.is adds), or a different research process.