Slashdot Mirror
Tracking Social Networking In Shakespeare Plays
An anonymous reader writes "By feeding PieSpy (an IRC bot used to visualise social networks) with the entire texts of Shakespeare plays, it became possible to produce drawings of the social networks present in his plays - it is now possible to visualize the relationships between the characters in his works, and see Shakespeare in an entirely new light."
see Shakespeare in an entirely new light.
No thanks. My high school english classes did a good job of making sure that I'd never enjoy classic works.
There's no way to make someone hate reading faster than english classes.
-Colin
Based on the article and PieSpy site, it seems that PieSpy only finds the existence of a connection between members -- a symmetric relationship in which "A connects to B" implies "B connects to A". Yet human relationships tend to be asymmetric: "A likes B" does not imply that "B likes A" and "A controls B" certainly does not imply "B controls A".
A more powerful version of PieSpy would examine the text (and context) of who is connecting to whom. For example, the introduction of new words by some members of the network and the echoing of those words by others would help identify the directional flow of information in the network and help assess the level of control of the thread by some members over others. Analyzing the emotional content of words in threads could probably even let the software make approximate judgements of who likes/hates whom. Analyzing when some members leave IRC as a function of the joining of other members might also help detect asymmetric relationships.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
"There must be a way we can make $ out of the internet without directly selling stuff. Let's get people to write content for free, archive it and when people search it show them ads relevant to their terms / the page's terms"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
who thinks Shakespeare is over-rated, and over-valorized ?
This could have easily been done with any other author/book/etc. Lord of the Flies IMO would have been more fitting
Sunny Dubey
Can ANYONE explain the latest craze about social networks like Orkut or Friendster?
While I can't answer why it's a craze right now, I can tell you why I personally like using Orkut.
I've always liked the idea of bulletin boards and discussion groups on the internet, but I found them less than engaging in practice. The main reason for this for me was because they were faceless. I could never remember if I had replied to HMN22's comments before or not -- I could never get a sense of the personalities I was interacting with.
On the communities in Orkut, I can see a picture of the person next to each comment they make. That is a world of difference for me. Now I can much more easily remember if I've interacted with that person before. Also, I can check out their profile and get more of a sense of who they are.
But as I said, that's just why I like it -- I'm sure many others have very different reasons.
-Colin
Good question, I tend to share your indifference about things like Orkut and Friendster, however I can see why they are of interest.
The internet and WWW are more than information technologies or even communications technologies, one of the most complelling uses for them are as technologies for maintaining relationships aka relationship technologies (and yes, I realize that differentiating this from communications might seem difficult, but for now lets leave it at communications being an important part of a relationship). The importance of relationship technologies can be seen in how instant messaging, chat and especially email have driven the widespread adoption of technology. These social networks are really just the latest experiment. Whether or not it will succeed to the point where they are as ubiquitous as email or IM is questionable. Nevertheless they are worthy of some attention, and possibly even the occassional front page post on Slashdot as examples of how technology is being applied to the important aspects of peoples daily lives and thus being ever more embedded in these lives.
More generally, the study of social networks are helpful for understanding things ranging from power relationships in society to the adoption and diffusion of innovation, not, of course, that Orkut or Friendster is likely to help with this aspect.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
And this was impossible up until now exactly why?
I'm indifferent to the internet or the people on the internet
People who bother to say something to other people are trying to reach out to other people. Obviously you wanted people on the internet to read what you wrote otherwise you wouldn't have written it and submitted it to ./.
Thus the very making of this comment makes it incorrect.
It's not too hot at analysing the play within a play of a Midsummer Nights Dream. You will note that it considers "Snug" and "Lion" as separate characters, whereas in the PWP Snug is the character who plays the lion.
For your next movie deal, don't just count the lines in your part. Instead, feed the script to PieSpy to see whether the universe really will revolve around you.
Well, actually, let your agent's geek assistant do it for you -- after all, you "have people" for that sort of thing, don't you?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I wonder how it deals with all of the soliloquies in Shakespeare's texts, especially since those are some of the largest blocks of conversation.
Seems like the thickest line should be a loop from Hamlet back to Hamlet.
Heh.
... the latest craze about social networks like Orkut or Friendster?
I'll offer a few.
1. People like to interact and to form groups. Anyone who's been to secondary school has ample (often painful) evidence of this. But, in the world, there are lots of reasons the connections don't form: distance, convenience, physical appearance, race, and relative wealth being just a few of them.
Online social networks ignore some of these physical world "dimensions of compatibility". The result is increased emphasis on commonality of interests, sense of humor, intellect, etc. Geeks tend to connect better in these ways anyway. As a bonus, connections formed on these basis are though by some to be "deeper" or more enduring, once they form.
2. Another explanation is that getting clique-y is something non-geeks enjoy/think that they're good at. Thus it's an online activity one can get the non-geek masses to do. Hence, popularity.
3. Finally, companies have an incentive to promote this stuff, since it draws customers to spend lots of time using their systems, which drives revenue.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I like the idea of running a Spaulding Gray monologue through this. The sad little dot in a large blank space. A single node in the digital pool.
So you don't think Slashdot is any sort of "social" network? I've made quite a few friends here, to the point of having them fly across the country to stay in my house. Granted that's not why we come here initially, but the effect, in a lot of cases, is exactly the same, isn't it?
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Try Kurosawa's 'Throne of Blood' for quite simply the best film adaptation of Macbeth.
--
This sig is inoffensive.