Final Project: Electronic Literature- Distraction or Simplicity?

As our society moves into a technological era, we are forced to adapt our ways of thinking and interacting in order to survive and keep up with the changing times. As technology affects our society, it is also affecting our literature. Recently, hypertexts and online literature have been surfacing and causing either excitement and awe with their unique characteristics, coinciding with many peoples’ view of literature as a natural enjoyment, or in some cases, electronic literature causes frustration with these characteristics differing from basic literature, causing reading or “viewing” these pieces to be considered a task the reader has to complete rather than an enjoyment they want to take part in. While many believe electronic literature is an innovative and engaging form of reading, I believe it is merely distracting due to the required focus of all or many of your senses and the overabundance of layers causing it to not be as in depth and enthralling as basic literature, thus making it more of a task to be completed rather than a relaxing and enjoying activity.

Electronic literature engages different senses than basic literature, thus making it distracting and difficult to follow. In many of the pieces of electronic literature, the reader is required to devote thier sight, hearing, and touch in order to receive the full story and experience. Although the authors may do this to try to catch the reader’s interest, it is very distracting from the main story and causes the reader to miss the main point and storyline of what they are “reading.” If the reader cannot follow along with what they are reading, then the literature becomes more of a task than an enjoyment. When reading literature, one should not have to work to understand and comprehend the story or main idea the piece of literature is presenting. According to McLuhan, “Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions” (40). By changing the surroundings in the online literature, the authors present us with many different perceptions of sense. In “Red Riding Hood”, the reader follows along with the story of Red Riding Hood while somewhat interacting with her environment. While you can make objects move or change in the background, you cannot change the story and while you are distracted with trying to make these objects do something, you miss the actual story and then are presented with a drastically different ending than the original story and are confused as to what happened. You miss the whole point of the story and are left with questions and no answers. In trying to change the environment of the story and achieving a different outcome, the reader is presented with work to do. Most people know the basic story of “Red Riding Hood” and therefore are enveloped with the fact that they can interact with the surroundings of the story. Most “readers” become distracted with the task of changing the inevitable end, rather than enjoying the take on the story, only to be surprised with a drastically different ending, leaving the reader confused and their work pointless. Another piece of electronic literature, “Accounts of the Glass Sky”, is very similar. The reader has to follow the words on the sides of the pages while they are presented with harsh sounds and a changing image that make the words hard to read. You are unable to follow what the author is trying to say, and the sounds and changing images make the story very hard to follow. With basic literature, the reader is  presented with simple words on a page that do no change or make noise and are very easy to follow along with. You simply have to read the sentences in order to comprehend the story that the author presents. In “Carving in Possibilities”, the “reader” moves their mouse over the blurry picture of Michelangelo’s David making short phrases appear and gradually carving the statue. While this piece of electronic literature was most likely meant to have a deep meaning, when approached, the interactive aspect is merely distracting. You find yourself immersed in the aspect of carving the statue rather than reading the words that were meant to make up the literature. In the words of McLuhan, “The extension of any one sense alters the way we think and act- the way we perceive the world” (41). When looking at electronic literature, adding sounds and images and the interactive aspect change our perception of the story. The reader sees the story much differently than if they were merely reading the words. In trying to focus on all of the different stimuli at once, the reader is presented with a job rather than something they can enjoy and relax with. While reading, one merely has to follow the story, but when the reader is forced to focus on many changing aspects at once, they are found to be partaking in a job that has to be completed in order to understand the meaning of the literature. When most people find literature that they want to read, they are looking for something that makes them think, while at the same time is relaxing and does not involve dealing with a task. In this sense, electronic literature is drastically different than basic literature and is much more distracting to our senses and harder to follow than the simple words of basic literature.

In electronic literature, there are many layers to every story, making it hard to distinguish and follow along with the main story. In basic literature, there are sometimes smaller stories within the main story. This occurs in electronic literature as well, but the smaller layered stories do not necessarily follow along with the main story and make the piece very hard to follow and understand. The reader gets distracted with the smaller stories and loses track of the main story. In “The Museum”, the reader has the chance to click on different links that take them to different stories. After you click five or more links leading to different stories, the main story is eventually lost and the reader forgets what they were reading in the first place. This type of text calls for easy distraction and leads to misunderstanding. When the reader becomes lost within this hypertext, they find themselves presented with the task of figuring out how it all connects or even as simple as figuring out how to turn back to the main story. “The Museum” becomes more of a difficult and complex task rather than a relaxing piece of literature. In another piece of electronic literature called “Storyland”, the reader is presented with short sentences out of order that are supposed to make up one large story. After the story is done, the reader is presented with another; however, the stories do not make any sense when read. The fragmented stories are confusing and do not provide an engaging story that basic literature does with one story and a clear path to a definitive ending. In “Defiant: The Possession of Christian Shaw”, there are many different paths that the reader can follow in order to complete the story. While some may find this freedom to choose which part they look at first a refreshing aspect of literature, it mainly distracts from the main story. In having so many options, the story becomes jumbled and the reader is left with questions about what really happened or if there was even a story at all. In Birkert’s novel, he emphasizes this aspect of electronic literature by saying, “the reader can choose to follow any number of subnarrative paths” (163). With people today, giving them the chance to become distracted is a clear invite to follow these paths leading away from the story. Even when not given the chance, people on the internet still find their way to getting distracted and off task. By providing the reader with so many chances to lead off the path, the author is forcing the reader away from their story. Birkerts also stated, “We have created invisible elsewheres that are as immediate as our actual surroundings. We have fractured the flow of time, layered it into competing simultaneities. We learn to do five things at once or pay the price” (219). Birkerts implies that in this society we must be able to multitask in order to survive in this technologically advanced world. By forcing the reader to multitask, authors are no longer giving the reader the relaxing and enjoying literature they are looking for, but rather the tedious task of figuring out where the story is even supposed to be going. Even in literature, we have to learn to multitask and follow multiple stories simultaneously; however, many cannot succeed with this multitasking and the essence of true literature is lost in the complexity of the distracting electronic complications.

While most electronic literature is distracting and hard to follow, some people believe it is very simple and easy to read and find it more engaging than a book because of the interaction with music and images. Some think this interaction with the literature is not a task, but more of a game that is intertwined into their literature. In “Deviant: The Possession of Christian Shaw”, many people could see this piece of electronic literature as an interactive game rather than a story. There are very few words and the reader is left to come up with their own conclusions from the story and the different interactions that they come across. People these days are used to doing everything on a computer and are welcome to having their literature online as well. An example of a piece of easy to follow electronic literature is “Soliloquy.” It is a list of every word one man has said for a whole week where the reader simply has to put their mouse over a blank spot on the page to see the sentences one at a time and read them in order like a story. In the words of Carr, “The Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” Most people are used to everything gradually changing into a form of technology. When many people think of technology, they think of electronic games. The new invention of electronic literature to some people is another form of a game. They get to interact with the story and make aspects of the story change or follow along with different story lines to get to the ending the reader or “player” wants. Books have become mere apps on tablets like games, so why shouldn’t forms of literature turn to being online too? While some may think this way, many believe the simplicity of a book is part of the joy of literature. In the example of “Soliloquy,” while many may think this is an easy piece to follow along with, others believe that the fact that you can’t see all the sentences at once is too complex and you have to pay too much attention to make sure you are reading the correct sentence in the right order, thus making the reading of the piece a task to follow along with. Electronic literature is more of a game that we play than a story that we read; however, in this time in society, this idea may be what people are looking for to go along with every other form of technology, more entertaining and easier to access.

As most aspects of life today are either online or accessible by some sort of technology, our ancient forms of literature are changing as well. More electronic literature is published all the time and we are reading less and less books as a society. Many people do not even buy physical books anymore, but simply download the book onto the latest tablet. While many people see this as a convenience and think electronic literature is more engaging and entertaining than basic book literature, I believe that electronic literature is merely distracting and overly complicated and is not capable of getting a simple story across without complications and the reader, or in this case, the viewer, getting lost. Electronic literature is a task that the reader has to complete in order to achieve the understanding of the main point of the story rather than enjoy as a simple pastime. Electronic literature requires the attention of more than just your eyes reading the story, but requires you to listen to the sound and watch the pictures or movie that goes along with the text, or is in place instead of the text. While focusing on all this stimuli, many pieces online have interactive aspects that you have to focus on as well. Some may find this entertaining, but many believe it is too complex for literature and is turning into more of a game than a piece of literature. Turning literature into another aspect of technology takes away the ease associated with reading and introduces reading as a task for the reader to complete. Just as technology complicates other aspects of life by trying to simplify them, online literature does the same. By trying to provide a new form of literature and easier access, we as readers are not given a simpler form of literature, but rather a job to do when trying to understand the point of the piece. Another distracting aspect is the complexity of the layers over the main story online. By following all of the “subnarratives” the reader gets lost and can no longer focus on what the main story is saying anymore. All of these distractions take away from the essence of literature and turns this ancient practice into a modern day technological advancement.

Self Reflection

In revising my third writing project, I hoped to expand upon my ideas by incorporating the main idea of my first writing project while still keeping the focus on the analysis of electronic literature. I chose to do this because I considered my first writing project to be my weakest of the year and my third to be my strongest. I thought that by combining the two, I could strengthen my latest writing by adding on how I viewed reading in the beginning of the year. I incorporated my initial idea that reading should be a relaxing activity into my latest idea of how electronic literature is distracting and not relaxing. It is more of a task needing to be completed in order to understand the main point of the story. In developing my ideas by combining them, I also explored more pieces of electronic literature that I analyzed and utilized in my argument. I looked into “Carving in Possibilities” and “Defiant: The Possession of Christian Shaw”, both of which are interactive and help to argue my point in my essay. In addition, I developed my counterargument by including one of the new pieces I looked into and added the counter of my idea that electronic literature is a task by saying that some see it as more of a game.  I used the new piece, “Defiant: The Possession of Christian Shaw” to make my point in my counterargument that some may see electronic literature as a game because it is almost completely an interactive piece. My goal was to add some new ideas to each paragraph while adding on to my old ideas with more support from new pieces of electronic literature.

At the beginning of the year, I decided to focus mainly on learning to analyze writing more and working on word choice. One of my biggest struggles with writing has always been how to analyze the text we are working on or the outside sources that we are reading. This year I have tried working on this more especially in the last two writing projects. I believe my third writing project showed quite a bit of improvement on my analysis and now my final project has even more analysis of electronic literature by incorporating many examples from both the literature itself and from outside articles and books we have been studying throughout the year. While I feel my analysis has strengthened I still need to work on my word choice. In many of my essays I feel as if I repeat the same thing even though in my head I am trying to expand upon my original idea. I need to work on finding different words to describe what I am talking about and learning to transfer what I’m thinking in my mind to ideas that other’s can understand without an explanation from me. In my upcoming semesters, I hope to work on this word choice as well as a little bit of organization. While my essays make sense and I feel flow from paragraph to paragraph fairly easily, each one is the same exact structure give or take a paragraph. I want to work on mixing up my essays some and finding new ways to organize them that my make my argument or point more affective to the reader. I feel I have made a lot of progress this semester in my writing quality and style; however, I still have a lot of room for improvement and I hope to work on my writing over my years here at Washington College.

Electronic Literature: Distraction or Simplicity

As our society moves into a technological era, we are forced to adapt our ways of thinking and interacting in order to survive and keep up with the changing times. As technology affects our society, it is also affecting our literature. Recently, hypertexts and online literature have been surfacing and causing either excitement and awe with their unique characteristics, or in some cases, frustration with these characteristics differing from basic literature. While many believe electronic literature is an innovative and engaging form of reading, I believe it is merely distracting due to the required focus of all or many of your senses and the overabundance of layers causing it to not be as in depth and enthralling as basic literature.

Electronic literature engages different senses than basic literature, thus making it distracting and difficult to follow. In many of the pieces of electronic literature, you are required to devote your sight, hearing, and touch in order to receive the full story and experience. Although the authors may do this to try and catch the reader’s interest, it is very distracting from the main story and causes the reader to miss the main point and storyline of what they are “reading.” According to McLuhan, “Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions” (40). By changing the surroundings in the online literature, the authors present us with many different perceptions of sense. In “Red Riding Hood”, the reader follows along with the story of Red Riding Hood while somewhat interacting with her environment. While you can make objects move or change in the background, you cannot change the story and while you are distracted with trying to make these objects do something, you miss the actual story and then are presented with a drastically different ending than the original story and are confused as to what happened. You miss the whole point of the story and are left with questions and no answers. Another piece of electronic literature, “Accounts of the Glass Sky”, is very similar. The reader has to follow the words on the sides of the pages while they are presented with harsh sounds and a changing image that make the words hard to read. You are unable to follow what the author is trying to say, and the sounds and changing images make the story very hard to follow. With basic literature, you are presented with simple words on a page that do no change or make noise and are very easy to follow along with. You simply have to read the sentences in order to comprehend the story that the author presents. In the words of McLuhan, “The extension of any one sense alters the way we think and act- the way we perceive the world” (41). When looking at electronic literature, adding sounds and images and the interactive aspect change our perception of the story. The reader sees the story much differently than if they were merely reading the words. In this sense, electronic literature is drastically different than basic literature and is much more distracting to our senses and harder to follow than the simple words of basic literature.

In electronic literature, there are many layers to every story, making it hard to distinguish and follow along with the main story. In basic literature, there are sometimes smaller stories within the main story. This occurs in electronic literature as well, but the smaller layered stories do not necessarily follow along with the main story and make the piece very hard to follow and understand. The reader gets distracted with the smaller stories and loses track of the main story. In “The Museum”, the reader has the chance to click on different links that take them to different stories. After you click five or more links leading to different stories, the main story is eventually lost and the reader forgets what they were reading in the first place. This type of text calls for easy distraction and leads to misunderstanding. In another piece of electronic literature called “Storyland”, the reader is presented with short sentences out of order that are supposed to make up one large story. After the story is done, the reader is presented with another; however, the stories do not make any sense when read. The fragmented stories are confusing and do not provide an engaging story that basic literature does with one story and a clear path to a definitive ending. In Birkert’s novel, he emphasizes this aspect of electronic literature by saying, “the reader can choose to follow any number of subnarrative paths” (163). With people today, giving them the chance to become distracted is a clear invite to follow these paths leading away from the story. Even when not given the chance, people on the internet still find their way to getting distracted and off task. By providing the reader with so many chances to lead off the path, the author is forcing the reader away from their story. Birkerts also stated, “We have created invisible elsewheres that are as immediate as our actual surroundings. We have fractured the flow of time, layered it into competing simultaneities. We learn to do five things at once or pay the price” (219). Birkerts implies that in this society we must be able to multitask in order to survive in this technologically advanced world. Even in literature, we have to learn to multitask and follow multiple stories simultaneously; however, many cannot succeed with this multitasking and the essence of true literature is lost in the complexity of the distracting electronic complications.

While most electronic literature is distracting and hard to follow, some people believe it is very simple and easy to read and find it more engaging than a book because of the interaction with music and images. People these days are used to doing everything on a computer and are welcome to having their literature online as well. An example of a piece of easy to follow electronic literature is “Soliloquy.” It is a list of every word one man has said for a whole week where the reader simply has to put their mouse over a blank spot on the page to see the sentences one at a time and read them in order like a story. In the words of Carr, “The Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” Most people are used to everything gradually changing into a form of technology. Books have become mere apps on tablets so why shouldn’t forms of literature turn to being online too? While some may think this way, many believe the simplicity of a book is part of the joy of literature. In the example of “Soliloquy,” while many may think this is an easy piece to follow along with, others believe that the fact that you can’t see all the sentences at once is too complex and you have to pay too much attention to make sure you are reading the correct sentence in the right order. Electronic literature is more of a game that we play than a story that we read; however, in this time in society, this idea may be what people are looking for to go along with every other form of technology, more entertaining and easier to access.

As most aspects of life today are either online or accessible by some sort of technology, our ancient forms of literature are changing as well. More electronic literature is published all the time and we are reading less and less books as a society. Many people do not even buy physical books anymore, but simply download the book onto the latest tablet. While many people see this as a convenience and think electronic literature is more engaging and entertaining than basic book literature, I believe that electronic literature is merely distracting and overly complicated and is not capable of getting a simple story across without complications and the reader, or in this case, the viewer, getting lost. Electronic literature requires the attention of more than just your eyes reading the story, but requires you to listen to the sound and watch the pictures or movie that goes along with the text, or is in place instead of the text. While focusing on all this, many pieces online have interactive aspects that you have to focus on as well. Some may find this entertaining, but many believe it is too complex for literature and is turning into more of a game than a piece of literature. Another distracting aspect is the complexity of the layers over the main story online. By following all of the “subnarratives” the reader gets lost and can no longer focus on what the main story is saying anymore. All of these distractions take away from the essence of literature and turns this ancient practice into a modern day technological advancement.

Final Project Proposal

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

For my final project, I plan on revising the third writing project where we had to take a stance on electronic literature. My stance was that I feel electronic literature is more distracting than it is in depth or challenging to the reader. I am choosing to revise this essay because I feel that it is my strongest essay so far and has the most potential to be expanded upon. I plan on further supporting my argument by looking into more online texts as well as establishing more of a counterargument. I want to add a way in which I find electronic literature to be distracting, going along with my thesis, and using a new online text that I look into as well as the old to strengthen my argument.

For the rhetorical/logical aspect of my project, I would like to focus on my counterargument. While I feel my paper is fairly strong, I feel that if I worked on developing my counterargument more, then it will be even more effective. I would like to add more examples from pieces of electronic literature as well as doing more of an in depth analysis of these examples. I feel I did not spend enough time on the examples in my counterargument. I would also like to work on leading my counterargument back into the main point of my essay. I would like to expand upon my analysis of the example I give to lead the reader back into my view of electronic literature rather than being stuck with more analysis of the opposing view. By emphasizing the turn back into my main argument it will provide the reader with the difference between the two views and have their last thought be back into what my point is arguing.

For the grammatical portion of my project, I would like to focus on word choice and sentence structure. While I tend to have good ideas to start with, when I try to expand upon them, I end up saying the same thing rather than reiterating my point in different words. I want to work on using more effective word choice rather than simple conversational words that do not make my argument as strong as it could be. For sentence structure, I want to change up my sentences some so that my paper flows better and is not as choppy in some places. While in some places I find I have many short sentences, there are other parts of my paper that are filled with many run on sentences. By structuring my sentences and picking my words more strategically, I feel I could develop my paper much more and make my argument a lot more effective.

Electronic Literature: Distraction or Simplicity?

As our society moves into a technological era, we are forced to adapt our ways of thinking and interacting in order to survive and keep up with the changing times. As technology affects our society, it is also affecting our literature. Recently, hypertexts and online literature have been surfacing and causing either excitement and awe with their unique characteristics, or in some cases, frustration with these characteristics differing from basic literature. While many believe electronic literature is an innovative and engaging form of reading, I believe it is merely distracting due to the required focus of all or many of your senses and the overabundance of layers causing it to not be as in depth and enthralling as basic literature.

Electronic literature engages different senses than basic literature, thus making it distracting and difficult to follow. In many of the pieces of electronic literature, you are required to devote your sight, hearing, and touch in order to receive the full story and experience. Although the authors may do this to try and catch the reader’s interest, it is very distracting from the main story and causes the reader to miss the main point and storyline of what they are “reading.” According to McLuhan, “Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions” (40). By changing the surroundings in the online literature, the authors present us with many different perceptions of sense. In “Red Riding Hood”, the reader follows along with the story of Red Riding Hood while somewhat interacting with her environment. While you can make objects move or change in the background, you cannot change the story and while you are distracted with trying to make these objects do something, you miss the actual story and then are presented with a drastically different ending than the original story and are confused as to what happened. You miss the whole point of the story and are left with questions and no answers. Another piece of electronic literature, “Accounts of the Glass Sky”, is very similar. The reader has to follow the words on the sides of the pages while they are presented with harsh sounds and a changing image that make the words hard to read. You are unable to follow what the author is trying to say, and the sounds and changing images make the story very hard to follow. With basic literature, you are presented with simple words on a page that do no change or make noise and are very easy to follow along with. You simply have to read the sentences in order to comprehend the story that the author presents. In the words of McLuhan, “The extension of any one sense alters the way we think and act- the way we perceive the world” (41). When looking at electronic literature, adding sounds and images and the interactive aspect change our perception of the story. The reader sees the story much differently than if they were merely reading the words. In this sense, electronic literature is drastically different than basic literature and is much more distracting to our senses and harder to follow than the simple words of basic literature.

In electronic literature, there are many layers to every story, making it hard to distinguish and follow along with the main story. In basic literature, there are sometimes smaller stories within the main story. This occurs in electronic literature as well, but the smaller layered stories do not necessarily follow along with the main story and make the piece very hard to follow and understand. The reader gets distracted with the smaller stories and loses track of the main story. In “The Museum”, the reader has the chance to click on different links that take them to different stories. After you click five or more links leading to different stories, the main story is eventually lost and the reader forgets what they were reading in the first place. This type of text calls for easy distraction and leads to misunderstanding. In another piece of electronic literature called “Storyland”, the reader is presented with short sentences out of order that are supposed to make up one large story. After the story is done, the reader is presented with another; however, the stories do not make any sense when read. The fragmented stories are confusing and do not provide an engaging story that basic literature does with one story and a clear path to a definitive ending. In Birkert’s novel, he emphasizes this aspect of electronic literature by saying, “the reader can choose to follow any number of subnarrative paths” (163). With people today, giving them the chance to become distracted is a clear invite to follow these paths leading away from the story. Even when not given the chance, people on the internet still find their way to getting distracted and off task. By providing the reader with so many chances to lead off the path, the author is forcing the reader away from their story. Birkerts also stated, “We have created invisible elsewheres that are as immediate as our actual surroundings. We have fractured the flow of time, layered it into competing simultaneities. We learn to do five things at once or pay the price” (219). Birkerts implies that in this society we must be able to multitask in order to survive in this technologically advanced world. Even in literature, we have to learn to multitask and follow multiple stories simultaneously; however, many cannot succeed with this multitasking and the essence of true literature is lost in the complexity of the distracting electronic complications.

While most electronic literature is distracting and hard to follow, some people believe it is very simple and easy to read and find it more engaging than a book because of the interaction with music and images. People these days are used to doing everything on a computer and are welcome to having their literature online as well. An example of a piece of easy to follow electronic literature is “Soliloquy.” It is a list of every word one man has said for a whole week where the reader simply has to put their mouse over a blank spot on the page to see the sentences one at a time and read them in order like a story. In the words of Carr, “The Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” Most people are used to everything gradually changing into a form of technology. Books have become mere apps on tablets so why shouldn’t forms of literature turn to being online too? While some may think this way, many believe the simplicity of a book is part of the joy of literature. In the example of “Soliloquy,” while many may think this is an easy piece to follow along with, others believe that the fact that you can’t see all the sentences at once is too complex and you have to pay too much attention to make sure you are reading the correct sentence in the right order. Electronic literature is more of a game that we play than a story that we read; however, in this time in society, this idea may be what people are looking for to go along with every other form of technology, more entertaining and easier to access.

As most aspects of life today are either online or accessible by some sort of technology, our ancient forms of literature are changing as well. More electronic literature is published all the time and we are reading less and less books as a society. Many people do not even buy physical books anymore, but simply download the book onto the latest tablet. While many people see this as a convenience and think electronic literature is more engaging and entertaining than basic book literature, I believe that electronic literature is merely distracting and overly complicated and is not capable of getting a simple story across without complications and the reader, or in this case, the viewer, getting lost. Electronic literature requires the attention of more than just your eyes reading the story, but requires you to listen to the sound and watch the pictures or movie that goes along with the text, or is in place instead of the text. While focusing on all this, many pieces online have interactive aspects that you have to focus on as well. Some may find this entertaining, but many believe it is too complex for literature and is turning into more of a game than a piece of literature. Another distracting aspect is the complexity of the layers over the main story online. By following all of the “subnarratives” the reader gets lost and can no longer focus on what the main story is saying anymore. All of these distractions take away from the essence of literature and turns this ancient practice into a modern day technological advancement.

Online Literature: A Cause for More Complex Minds?

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Looking at the online literature, the one that caught my attention was “Red Riding Hood.” This site goes through the story of little red riding hood with somewhat of a twist to it. You watch her go through her journey with music in the background and only a few words such as “Once upon a not so far away.” As she goes through her journey, you can interact with some of her surroundings but not always, thus causing distraction from the story. In analyzing this story, I have come up with how online literature is much different from written literature because it calls for a different sort of attention.

When reading a book, you focus on the words and turning the pages, when you are presented with a piece of online literature, you have to focus on more than just words. Each piece is different thus causing you to explore the site until you figure out exactly what it is that you need to pay attention to. In the case of “Red Riding Hood”, there is stimulating music while words are also presented. Along with the words and music, there is a sort of interactive movie. You can interact with little red’s surroundings, but you soon realize that you cannot change her actions or the outcome of the story. In this way, the interactive aspect is somewhat distracting because you are trying to change the story knowing what will happen since we are all aware of the original story. While doing this, you miss what is actually happening and are surprised with a completely different ending. Carr states in his article, “reading is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains.” As online literature becomes more of a reality, our brains have to retrain our neural circuits into understanding a new way of reading. We are used to one stimulation when we are focusing on a story. With online literature, we have to retrain ourselves and get used to a new way of literally viewing a story. According to Carr, “there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.” This is proven in “Red Riding Hood” when you have to focus on many things at once to understand the whole story. We have to make our minds work faster in a new world of online literature.

The Simple Complexity of the Printed Text

After reading the articles by Murray and Carr and looking at the hypertext “The Museum”, I have found myself to disagree with much of what they are trying to argue. While most of their premise is correct in how we are turning into more of a digital era, I believe they are mislead in people turning away from books and other forms of print and relying on only the internet.

As Carr says, “the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” Most people these days rely on the internet for their complex research or even a simple question. While some believe you should stick to print books for reasons such as research, it is true that “some kinds of knowledge can be better represented in digital formats than they have been in print” (Murray 6). As books are turned into digital formats, they are easier to search through by simply typing in a word and finding every page that word relates to rather than having to flip through hundreds of pages. According to Carr, people have stopped reading books as much “not so much because the way I read changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed.” Carr believes we have started thinking differently due to the overflow of technology in our world. Carr states, “When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” While some may have this problem, many have the opposite. I find myself able to read long sections of books easily, but when it comes to long articles I find myself struggling to pay attention. Reading “The Museum”,  I found myself having the same problem. Murray stated, “Frustrated by the constraint of producing a single book with a single pattern of organization, I filled my collection with multiple cross-references, encouraging the reader to jump from one topic to another…I did not think of this cross-referencing as hypertext because I had not yet heard the term.”(4) While hypertexts may seem as new technology, we have been using this same context in footnotes for years in printed texts. While Carr would say that hypertexts are our changed way of thinking in technology, in reality it is the same as we have always thought. While in the printed version of a text, you have the difficulty of finding the other text, in a hypertext you have the ease of simply clicking a button. While this ease may seem a positive aspect, I found it troubling. I could not get through the story without clicking all sorts of buttons and getting lost until I could no longer focus on what was being said or where the story was going or where it even began for that matter. In this way, the internet is not making things easier, but making things more complicated in my mind by trying to mimic the simple complexity of the printed text.

The Past: Guiding Our Future

In McLuhan’s book The Medium is the Massage, he makes the argument that as the world changes, so does the way we present information. We are not relying on books and print as much, but more on technology. We are losing our privacy and today’s children are growing up in a different world. A world filled with computers, cell phones, and social networks. As we look forward into the present and future of our technological world, we are however learning and constantly looking at the past. One of McLuhan’s most interesting arguments I think is on pages 74 and 75.

On these pages, McLuhan provides a picture of a blurred background that you would see as u drive down a street. In the rear-view mirror is a clear image of horses pulling a cart. In the description, McLuhan states, “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future” (74-75). I interpreted these pages as McLuhan saying that even though we are moving towards a future of technology and change, we do not lose our past because we constantly look into it to guide our future. We take the past, such as printing and books, and let these aspects of history guide us into a better future of ebooks and other forms of technology. For example, as a book turns into an ebook, old style printed letters have been turned into social networks and texting. We use the same principles of our past and put them into a new medium in the present. As the future progresses, we will soon turn to our current mediums to help us understand and create even newer forms of communication and technology. When we are presented with new objects, or in these days gadgets, we turn to the most recent past to help guide us with our new technology and our future. In this way, the past is never lost. We still use it to guide us in our future ventures. Printing may be old, but it will help guide us with our current and future mediums as they are introduced to us.

I think Birkerts would agree with McLuhan’s main premise that our world is being taken over by technology with today’s children being raised in a technological world; however, I think he would disagree with the way McLuhan approaches the subject. By making his book different and not so “classic” he is in a way promoting our new mediums today rather than staying with the traditional that Birkerts knows and loves so well. While both have the same premise, they differ in how they present and argue their viewpoints. Personally, I prefer McLuhan’s approach. Birkerts may say this is only because I am one of the children growing up with technology.

Technology: Literature’s Demise or Proponent?

While Birkerts believes technology is taking away from the newer generations’ intelligence, Baron believes that technology is advancing the world of literature because it allows for more availability for people to write. Birkerts thinks that we are losing touch with language and are adopting more of a “plainspeak” by including so much technology in our lives, while Baron believes that technology is helping us use our language more.

Birkerts claims that writing and printing is going to become historic and we will have to go to museums to encounter it. He says, “a change is upon us—nothing could be clearer. The printed word is part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from—by choice and by societal compulsion” (118). He is stating that in the new world of technology, printing is becoming “vestigial” meaning its no longer needed for survival. We have replaced literature with other technological forms. Baron counters Birkerts by saying, “The earlier technologies of the pen, the printing press, and the typewriter, all expanded the authors club, whose members create text rather than just copying it. The computer has expanded opportunities for writers too, only faster, and in greater numbers. More writers means more ideas, more to read” (1). He believes that technology gives literature more freedom because there are more people to write and thus provide more literature in the future when in the past you had to be the best of the best to write and provide material for the public to read. Baron also states, “Every new communication technology has the capacity to expand the set of who gets to write and talk, who gets to publish and be heard” (3). Nowadays as long as you have a laptop, you have a way to publish and write for other people.

 If I were to extend Baron’s argument, I would talk about what we as a class are doing right now. In writing blogs on the internet, we allow our words to be public to anyone who wants to read it. We did not have to go to a special school and learn how to write for the purpose of people to read our words, we merely have to log on to our account and write what we want to say. We are not allowing literature to pass by us and fall into history, but we are extending it to the future by creating our own.

Walton: Combination of Frankenstein and his Monster

Process Reflection: My argument is that the second letter in the beginning of the novel serves to foreshadow the coming problems Victor and his monster face in the story. What is working so far are my quotes. They clearly emphasize my points in my body paragraphs. What I still need to work on is my elaboration on my quotes. For some I have a good amount of explanation, but for others I need to write more on them.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein provides an in depth look into many themes such as isolation and commitment. Victor Frankenstein is ardent in his education and exploration in science, while his monster suffers through the torments of isolation from the civilized world. The letters preceding Frankenstein’s story provides insight into the isolation and commitment of Victor and his monster through the paralleled mind of Robert Walton.  In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the second letter illuminates underlying themes in the characters of the novel and enlightens the reader into understanding Robert Walton as the amalgamation of Victor Frankenstein and his monster.

Walton’s second letter explores his shared characteristics with Frankenstein. Walton’s enthusiasm for his work in exploration mirrors Frankenstein’s ardent work in science. Walton writes to his sister, “I am…a workman to execute with perseverance and labour: — but besides this, there is a love for the marvelous, a belief in the marvelous, intertwined in all my projects, which hurries me out of the common pathways of men, even to the wild sea and unvisited regions I am about to explore” (33). Walton is quite enthusiastic in his work and is willing to risk the frozen seas in order to find unexplored land. He uses the word “execute” to refer to his work meaning he is enthusiastic in his adventures rather than doing them because he mus. Frankenstein is the same when it comes to his work in the unexplored regions of science. Frankenstein states, “My imagination was vivid, yet my powers of analysis and application were intense; by the union of these qualities I conceived the idea, and executed the creation of man” (180). Both of them describe their work as a form of “execution”. They do not merely apply their work, but are so ardent in it that they use the fierce term “execute”. As the letter precedes the text of the novel, the resemblance of Frankenstein’s character in Walton can be viewed as a form of foreshadowing the coming creation of the monster in Victor’s work in science. Walton states in his letter, “I cannot describe to you my sensations on the near prospect of my undertaking. It is impossible to communicate to you a conception of the trembling sensation, half pleasurable and half fearful, with which I am preparing to depart. I am going to unexplored regions” (32-33). In this statement, Walton expresses his emotions over his work and journey. He uses “unexplored” to imply that he is travelling to places no one has ventured to before. Frankenstein also uses “unexplored” to talk about topics in science that have not been approached before. Walton is excited to be exploring unseen places, but at the same time is fearful of what he may find. Frankenstein parallels this feeling with his science in how excited he becomes over the idea of making the monster, yet becomes fearful once he sees what he has created and brought to life. Victor described himself preparing for the monster’s awakening as “with an anxiety that almost amounted to agony…I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (61). Victor becomes fearful of his creation once he has executed his plans and work just as Walton fears he may feel after exploring the world. In many ways, Victor and Walton parallel each other in their commitment to their work, whether it be science or exploration, and in their emotions with which they approach their work.

As Walton parallels Victor, he does so with Victor’s monster as well in his want in companionship. While Victor’s monster wanders the world looking for someone to connect with, Walton is out at sea longing for the same aspect of life. Walton states, “But I have one want which I have never yet been able to satisfy; and the absence of the object of which I now feel as a most severe evil. I have no friend, Margaret: When I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy” (31). Walton longs for someone to share his desire and success in work with, but is unable to find such a person. He says “participate” to imply that he wants a companion who is active in his life and not merely present with no attachment. At the same time, Victor’s monster desires the same companionship when he states, “I am alone, and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species, and have the same defects” (128). The monster desires a companion that shares his same problems with the world. He says “associate” to imply the same as Walton. He wants someone in his life who will interact with him and share his joys and sorrows. Both he and Walton want a companion in difficult circumstances where a companion is hard to come across. Victor’s monster states, “Of my creation and creator I was absolutely ignorant; but I knew that I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property. I was, besides, endued with a figure hideously deformed and loathsome; I was not even of the same nature as man” (109). His realization that he is different from man encourages him to find a companion of the same “species” as himself. While the monster desires such a companion, Walton desires someone who will share the same happiness in success in his work. Both Walton and Victor’s monster long for someone who they can share their lives with in their adventures throughout the world.

In many texts, there are underlying meanings behind specific words that may indicate another text or a specific connotation of the word. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the second letter from Robert Walton foreshadows later troubles both Victor Frankenstein and his monster go through. Walton shares Victor’s enthusiasm for his work while exploring unseen parts of the world while Victor discovers untouched science by creating his monster. While Walton shares these aspects with Victor, he shares the need of a companion with the monster. Both want someone who they can share their lives with and not be isolated in the world. The preceding letters in the novel clearly elucidate the coming problems in the novel. Walton serves as the combination of both Victor and his monster in his commitment to his work and his isolation from society.