So, I thought that I would be brilliant with this blog post and try to do something cool like look up the meaning of the word voyeur on the Oxford English Dictionary website.Â In hindsight, it really wasnâ€™t that smart, apparently voyeur doesnâ€™t have a very flattering definition.
I knew about the existence of this less than flattering definition of voyeur before, but I really hoped that there would be a definition that was related more to viewing and less to sexual tendencies.Â Seeing as there really isnâ€™t one though, perhaps that is why the makers changed the name to Voyant, which when looked up on the Oxford English Dictionary website you get the following.
This is a name for this program that actually could have meaning, rather than making the user feel like a Peeping Tom.
Using the Voyeur/Voyant program, I have found that you really can see a lot of things about a piece of written material when utilising it, however, I find that the voyeur program is more capable of taking a qualitative analysis of a text and making it quantitative than it is capable of developing new ideas about the text.Â Take for example the idea that love and madness could be related, that is a qualitative analysis of Act Two and actually one of the themes to that particular act of Hamlet. Â Punching the words, Love and Mad into the word frequency tool on Voyeur, a researcher would see something like the picture below.
However, I have also discovered throughout Phase II that all of these programs do not work nearly as well on their own as they do in the company of others, particularly the WordHoard Program.Â I can find out who says what, where they say it, what they say around it, and when they say it; but I cannot find out how much they say, for that I need to rely on a program like WordHoard and my counterpart in the Act Two group, Jennifer, to tell me things such as, if Polonius talks more about madness to Ophelia, the King, or Hamlet.