Michael Silber, Studs Terkel: Lost in Editing

Introduction

In this essay, I am going to evaluate the method of transcription suggested by Michael Silber. In his work, Silber is not satisfied with the results Studs Terkel provides, because he finds his methods insufficient because of the amount of information lost in the transcription. I will compare the two views represented by these two men and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. The scientific value of the text by Silber will also be analyzed and reviewed as required by the assignment.

Analysis

Silber points out in his work that the transformation from the spoken interview to the written text is reduced by Terkel to a level where the message itself is changed. Silber also offers his own solution, including parts of the speech which are not transcribed by Terkel. These are mainly false starts, pauses and non-verbal content. The only reason for all-inclusive transcription provided by Silber is that “every word, even a pause, can be revealing”. Approaching this statement in detail, I find it vague and would certainly redefine it and divide it into several sections.
When a speech is transformed into a text, first thing to realize is the target audience. The transcriber needs to know who the potential reader of the text is, what is his approximate age, social group, profession. This is required in order to know what the reader expects from the text, what is the main message that needs to be transformed. I cannot agree with Silber that transcription of the entire speech, the documentation of every aspect of it is necessary.

It is not possible to transform all of the spoken content for the reason that the transcriber himself does not have the same background as the subject he interviews. While Silber can transcribe some of the additional features ignored by Terkel, he is unable to explain some of them. This is because he grew up in a different social and even possibly cultural environment. As if this was not enough, Silber does not attempt to explain, he only documents, therefore leaving explanation to the reader. While Terkel works with the text as the second party, therefore being close to the source as he can be, Silber proposes third-party analysis by the reader. The first party is the speaker himself, the second party is the mediator and the third party is the receiver in the general theory of communication. An unavoidable change is made to the speech or text on every level of transformation between the parties. Silber therefore gains distance from the reader trying to become closer. Meanwhile Terkel makes the text compact, leaving out the parts of the text which carry no important meaning when considering the main message. What Silber expects is that an amateur reader will have more professional experience in analysis of a speech than a professional such as Terkel, which is very improbable, yet more objective and scientific.

This leads back to the specification of the reader. For a popular text which a book written by Terkel certainly is, his approach is ideal. However, if the text was aimed at a professional anthropologic or social analyst, Silber’s attitude would be more acceptable. What Silber proposes is genre change of the text through alteration of the methodic approach. He basically suggests a different text, which is acceptable from the point of his own work, but unacceptable as a criticism of an already existing and fully integral text by Terkel.
From the scientific point of view, Silber’s work should have an objective specified. There should also be a working hypothesis and its validity should have been tested false or true towards the end of his study. Since none of these points are present, the work cannot be really considered a valid scientific paper. Except for this, general statements are used and the comments do not bear a sufficient depth. It is however an interesting piece of work from the point of the limits of information required to understanding a text.

Conclusion

Silber does approach the topic with an intention to improve the reader’s experience. However, he does not take enough attention to the particularities. I would recommend this text to any reader interested in the possible approaches towards transcription. However, it should be kept in mind that both Terkel and Silber do have valid attitudes and that the questionable part is the comparison of the texts when Silber tries to prove his work superior to that of Terkel, although it can be proven slightly inferior in the theory of communication.