Perhaps it is too late to be thinking about these things….but….
I loved the research element of this project, and find myself sifting through far too much information for the perimeters I set for myself. As I put the finishing touches on my project I would like to think that I have filled every nook and cranny with information. Sadly, this is not the case. There are some distinct holes that went unnoticed when compiling information. I began plotting information in the early 1900’s and have plotted various locations throughout the city into the 2000’s. What I am realizing now, is that I have a considerably larger catalogue of information for monuments from the early 1900’s and the closer I get to present day, the more I have to rely on not so reliable sources. I have a number of books that have been wonderful references to markers and monuments throughout the city, but no book goes further than the 1970’s. As a result I am left to rely in the black hole of information that is the Internet. While some of it is great, there is even more than is not so great. This has made the task of compiling additional information a bit more daunting than initially planned.
I think a great deal of this issue stems from the fact that I have changed the framework in which I present my argument multiple times. With each session in URT I become more aware of what the site is capable of doing and what a comprehensive argument will and will not require. In doing so, certain pieces of information become irrelevant and others become more important. It seems the most recent carnation of my framework lends itself more to a historical narrative that is present in my older data. Or maybe I am just really indecisive… Either way, it has made me start to think about newspapers and books in a new way. In their early carnation, information seemed to be readily available. Archived sites bring up five and six articles related to a specific monument giving updates on the sculptor, the donors, how the public feels about them ect. The later monuments have less and less press in the paper, and when they do it is brief, and gives little historical context. However, these more recent monuments have a very mediated presence on websites that are updated more regularly. So which is better a small trickle of information regularly or one solid chunk that has not been update for years?
uh! I need another semester to sort out which works better!