[log in to unmask]">Dear Stuart and Martin,We're somewhere in between both of your positions. Multiple characters might be considered "primary", and multiple might be considered "secondary" in a given TV episode. (When the team wishes to encode that value only once it is for each character in the episode. They're simply not using a castlist on each episode. Multiple characters might be seen as equivalently "primary" as in, sharing the spotlight.) Could this be calculated by string-length of speech? Sure, but this could miss some characters in the animation who are important in a primary way but aren't speaking much, or appearing only in the stage directions. There are some complexities to the Rick and Morty show that involve characters enhancing themselves across dimensions (in which the screen is split, or so the students tell me) and the same character speaks in different parallel universes in a state of divided persona that they are deeming a third value of @level: "dimensional". I'm not questioning it. But this seems useful data for them to be able to extract, and I think the distinction between a dimensional vs. a primary or secondary level may be a matter of human interpretation rather than calculation in this instance.
Of course I can suggest the string-length querying to them, since it may be useful for them to determine who speaks the most, and which characters turn up to be the most spoken about (a standard sort of DH question for performance texts, narratives, and other sorts of writings to do with the social interactions). Even so, they may want to process the texts to make such a calculation and still output something of the results of such queries in an attribute, and my question stands, whether the adaptation of @level to this purpose seems heretical, and whether there are perhaps better ways I may have missed.
It strikes me in writing this out that this sort of encoding is beyond the pale of standard values and interchangeability, and that perhaps defining a custom attribute may be the best path.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Martin Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
That's been my experience with capturing the number of speeches and spoken words in several hundred early modern plays. It's a very primitive measure, but it's easy to calculate, and it works surprisingly well.. But if the resulting numbers are very close, "primary" and "secondary" cease to be useful categories.
Does this actually need to be encoded manually? If you're already encoding the speaker of each word/<p>, you can go though after the fact and calculate how many words each person said in each episode. From that you should be able to calculate the relative prominence of each relatively straight-forwardly...