-p. 163. “[M]any critics therefore have concentrated on the philosophical and literary contexts that have facilitated the emergence of…literary “networks.” Regarding philosophical and literary contexts, are there any other contexts which distinguish digital media from paper media? Further down the paragraph, Saemmer says that “digital literature is continuously changing, gradually discovering its specific potential.” Paralleled to this idea, it seems that paper media has experienced most, if not all, of its potential. There is a continuing concern that print media is on its way out– what sort of philosophical and literary contexts surround that?
-p. 163. Saemmer mentions that “[t]he rectangular format in sometimes abandoned” referring to books and pages, as well as their physical construction. Which struck me as odd at first, but it makes sense. We’re calling into question reading practices, and on March 16th, we talked some about the expectations of readers, and this seems to fit into that discussion. Most of us expect a book to be rectangular, and making us conscious of that expectation and challenging it seem apropos for what we are doing. Though I can’t think of any specific examples, it wouldn’t surprise me to see one of those large, cardboard children’s books to be shaped in a non-rectangular way.
-p. 164. “French authors not only questioned the rigid format of books, but also the ability of traditional narrative structures to reflect the complexity of contemporary social, technological, political, and historical processes.” One of the traditional narrative structures that was mentioned was the narrative arc, and how These Waves of Girls does not deliver on that expectation, nor does The Things They Carried. And though both works disrupt this expectation, it does not make them any less profound or remarkable in their own rights. It strikes me that this disruption of expectation is more surprising in print media, in equating the physical structure of a book with an expected story structure. Another Tim O’Brien book with a similar structure (and content, for that matter) as The Things They Carried is If I Die in a Combat Zone, which also lacks an established narrative arc, but rather has each chapter has a specific theme related to the overall topic of O’Brien’s experience in Vietnam.
Another component we talked about on the 16th was unreliable narration in an autobiographical story. The focus of that was These Waves of Girls, but another parallel can be drawn to O’Brien. We know the two mentioned books are heavily based on his experience in Vietnam, but we don’t know what specifically he renders as fiction, what is nonfiction, and to what degree something is fictionalized. And, for me, anyway, because the books are so powerful and moving, the last thing I’m thinking about when I read them is the lack of a narrative arc. Though, to be fair, I’m not sure how the idea of a narrative arc is influenced by a collection of short stories. That’s probably something to ponder.
-p. 164. “[French authors] no longer believed in the power of language to represent the world.” I’m wondering, then, what role language then had? Were they looking for a way to replace language? Or to modify it in some way? Was that lack of power something that concerned them, or did they accept the idea and try to do something with it to give language its power back?
-p. 165. “The first electronic text generators nevertheless seem tightly linked to the rules that human beings (e.g., authors or readers) impose on them.” To an extent, it sounds like it is still that way. Text generators do what the programmer programs it to do (at least, I think). But as readers, the rules we can impose on a piece of digital literature is variable. We can, in some way, create our own narrative arc with These Waves of Girls but may miss some facets of the story and may not even realize it. And we can experience a YHCHI piece in its entirety, but have no control over how we read the text. And we may be able to eventually experience a piece in full, like The Flat, but be restricted in how long we have to experience it each time we make an attempt.
-p. 165. “Considering the ‘intentionality of the computer,’ the author of a digital work, according to Philippe Bootz, always creates with the awareness of a failure.” There is a parallel lurking here between authors of digital lit and authors of non-digital lit, but I can’t put my finger on it. When we write a piece of fiction or poetry on paper, we have to follow a code (whether we’re aware of it or not) in shaping letters, constructing words out of them, attaching meanings to the words, presenting the words to a reader, hoping the reader can decipher the code and make meaning out of it. Which is pretty easily defined as literacy in a particular language. But for those of us who are illiterate in code, the failure that an author has to expect is heightened in other ways.
-p. 166. “…when it thus destabilizes the reader’s expectations, I would propose to call these phenomena figures of manipulation.” Which carries a connotation of intentionality to it– the author is purposely destabilizing the reader’s expectations. This, I suppose, can also be done with print media. A piece I have in mind is “Black Glass Soliloquy” by Ben Mirov, which uses keyboard symbols as letters in some spots in the poem. There is also a video of the poem on YouTube, which furthers this destabilization. To take this idea even further in print media, we can experience unintentional manipulation– like if section B is missing from the paper, or if a page is missing from a library book. These destabilize our expectations, and we have to do something about this discovery, even if it’s as simple as not continuing to read. The manipulation affects how we interact with a piece.
-p. 171. “[S]ome manipulations seem to have an impact on the interface without being instantly discernible.” That may be one of the anticipated failures mentioned on p. 165. The possibility exists that the manipulation is never discerned by the reader. And if the manipulation is not discerned, how does that affect the aesthetic of the piece? Or the reader’s expectation or interpretation? In the event that a manipulation is discerned by a reader, are the expectations gradually shaped by the manipulations, consciously or not?
Matters about Language, Poetics, Meaning, etc. 