Jackson/Hypertext Blog

                After exploring many different types of electronic literature, I have come to find that hypertext literature is the most easily relatable to those who are used to “regular” literature. Steve Ersinghaus, in his article “Reading Hypertext: Reading Blue Hyacinth,” seems to be of the same opinion. He explains that exploring hypertext is analogous to exploring a new city. First there is the impulse or drive to explore which pushes a person to discover all that they can about this foreign entity. This impulse is necessary for both hypertext and a new city because if there is no desire to explore and discover then a person will not try to learn all that they can and the experience will not be as fulfilling since its potential will not be realized. Ersinghaus furthers his analogy by explaining that a person must pay closer attention than they would to something familiar. In either a new city or a hypertext, a person will have to take note of something that they would not bother to take note of in his or her hometown or in a type of literature that he or she is used to, and this is simply because he or she would have already taken note of it in his or her earlier explorations of those familiarities so there is no point in doing so again.

The point that Ersinghaus makes that leads me to believe he agrees with my opinion that hypertext is the most easily relatable type of electronic literature is the final part of his analogy. He argues that in exploring either a hypertext or a new city a person uses his or her previous experience to make this new discovery easier. By being familiar with the commonalities that all cities or all hypertexts have, it makes the exploration of this new city or new hypertext less confusing and more enjoyable. Hypertext is the most relatable because it is the type of electronic literature that connects most with a reader’s previous experience with “normal” literature. Both types of literature may have any or all of the following similarities: characters, plot (including rising action, climax, falling action, etc.), setting, paragraph formats, dialogue, descriptive details, and other standard characteristics. Therefore, I believe a new reader of electronic literature would be able to more fully connect with or relate to hypertext literature than any other type that I have explored.

                One piece of hypertext narrative that I feel coincides with the previously stated argument is Patchwork Girl by Shelley Jackson. Patchwork Girl is a modern, hypertext adaptation of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Essentially, it is about a “monster” that is made up of different parts of others, just like the monster Frankenstein is made up of various parts of different dead people. There are major differences between the two, however. Frankenstein is male while Patchwork girl is female, and Frankenstein was made up of only human parts, where Patchwork girl also has animal parts, like cow intestines.

There are multiple narrators in this text, as the title page suggests. The story is told alternately by Mary Shelly, Shelley Jackson and Patchwork Girl.

Mary Shelly tells the tale as the creator of patchwork girl – she is the one who took all of these different parts and sewed them together. Shelley Jackson tells the tale as an omniscient narrator, commenting on both the story and the vehicle through which the story is told – hypertext. Patchwork Girl tells the tale, obviously, as the main character narrator, bringing the reader along with her on her journey for self-discovery and self-identity. There is one more creator of this story that is not named in the title page – the reader. Since this is a hypertext narrative, the decisions that the reader makes while reading shape how the story unfolds. Depending on what links are clicked and when, the way the story develops is different for everyone, and therefore the experience of the story is different for everyone. This is an integral part of any hypertext literature, and in this case it connects the theme of the narrative to its structure or form.

                Patchwork Girl is about self-identity. Patchwork girl is trying to find who she is and how she fits in with the rest of the world, a task that is much more difficult for her because she is so much different than anyone else. She is trying to reconcile all the separate parts that make up who she is and form a single identity. This is a reflection of the hypertext form of the narrative, and the structure is a mirror of the structure of Patchwork girl’s body and purpose. Patchwork girl is made up of so many different parts, just like a hypertext, and these parts are woven together to form a cohesive whole, again like hypertext. It has to be decided how all of these apparently separate parts work with and relate to each other and make up something bigger than the individual aspects. The form also reflects the theme through the reader. The reader has to make all these connections between the different lexia of the hypertext and interpret the different sections, both individually and in how they create a whole, coherent story.

                There are different critical lenses through which to analyze Patchwork Girl, just like with any other type of “regular” literature. For example, it is possible to read Patchwork Girl from a feminist perspective and discover many different facets that a surface reading might not manifest. It is interesting to note that the “monstrous” body, the person searching for self-identity in this narrative, is a woman. This ties into a feminist reading of the text because it shows how the image of women is not as concrete as that of men. In other words, women are more likely to struggle with their identity and place in the world because their standing in society is much more tentative. The physical image of a woman is important to society as well. Patchwork girl is really big and has severe scarring all over her body from where she was sewed together. These characteristics are not considered feminine, and therefore she herself is considered unfeminine in the eyes of society. This attributed masculinity makes others feel that she is not beautiful, in the traditional sense of the word, since beauty is typically an effeminate quality. So because Patchwork Girl does not fit the cultural expectations of femininity and female beauty, she is considered to be less of a woman. Continuing in this feminist light, it is also possible to explore the perspective through the narrator of Mary Shelly. At one point she talks about how in exchanging a piece of herself with Patchwork girl she must find a spot that her husband will not miss.

This shows that her husband has a certain amount of control over her actions and her body. She does not have complete agency as she must take into consideration her husband’s preferences.

                Patchwork girl, as previously explained, is a piece of hypertext narrative that supports the belief that hypertext is the most relatable type of electronic literature. Like a “normal” piece of literature, it has standard characteristics of narrative and standard literary devices. The story has plot, dialogue, setting, characters, metaphors, theme, detailed descriptions, figurative language, and many other characteristics that together form a traditionally “good” piece of literature. These characteristics connect with the form or structure of the piece as a hypertext narrative. Taking all of these aspects into account, Patchwork Girl can be seen as an effective piece of literature, both as a traditional text and as a hypertext. This effectiveness in both fields proves that hypertext and "regular" text are easily relatable genres of literature, and that aspects of each can connect with the other, making the transition from “normal” literature to electronic literature less discombobulating and more enjoyable.

IF/Inform 7 Blog

While learning about and dealing with electronic poetry, I often had the thought that nothing about electronic literature could be more complex, detailed or difficult. Then I was introduced to interactive fiction and realized just how wrong I was. There is much more to learn and know about IF than there is about e-poetry. The vocabulary, for instance, is not only larger but is more necessary for the understanding of the subject. In any introductory material to IF, it is important to define key words for a novice of IF in order for him or her to more easily and more completely form and idea and image of what it all is and what it all means. Fredrik Ramsberg, in “A Beginner’s Guide to Interactive Fiction,” lays out some of these definitions in order for the reader to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the world of interactive fiction. Most of what he introduces is common vernacular for those familiar with the IF field. He explains input (what the interactor says/commands), output (the responses and information the interactor receives), puzzles (situations the interactor has to figure out in order to progress in the IF) and the varying degrees of puzzle-based IF and puzzle-less IF. Along with these common IF terms, Ramsberg also introduces a concept very familiar in IF with a term that is not as proverbial – stuckness. Ramsberg invents this word as a way to describe a frustrating aspect of IF that every interactor experiences at some point. He warns newcomers that they will get stuck when dealing with interactive fictions, but assures them that it is simply an inherent part of the IF process and entreats them not to be discouraged when they inevitably feel like they have reached a dead end and cannot progress.

Another helpful source for new IF users is Nick Montfort’s “Twisty Little Passages.” In his first chapter, “The Pleasure of the Text Adventure,” Montfort explains many important IF terms necessary for a fuller understanding of interactive fiction. These include terms such as player-character (a character directly commanded by the interactor), prologue (the description of the IF world given before there is any opportunity for a command), cycle (one input and all the output that follows until the next input), and many other critical IF terms. One source that is interesting not just in the technical sense of interactive fiction is “Interactive Fiction as Literature” by May Ann Buckles. She argues that interactive fiction is literature, that it has literary value like any other “regular” piece of fiction. Interactive fictions hold similarities with many genres of literature, such as mystery, adventure novels, fantasy/sci-fi, and chivalric romances. She believes that IF is just as creative, entertaining and valuable as “normal” literature and supports her opinion through the examination and explanation of these similarities. It is easy to see the validity in Buckles’ assertion when interacting with a piece such as “Galatea” by Emily Short. In this particular IF, the focus is less on puzzle and more on interaction with the non-player character, Galatea. There are many options for player-character speech, and each option leads to a different response from Galatea. The IF is basically an expansion and interpretation of the Galatea myth, and so there is a variety of ways for the story to progress, unfold and end. In each of my multiple interactions with “Galatea,” I experienced a different ending or outcome. One time she simply refused to continue speaking with me, another time I was ordered to leave her presence. My favorite ending, however, was when Galatea was killed.

I did not enjoy this because I wanted Galatea to die, but because it was an interesting and unique ending that proved to me that there are multiple ways to interpret and experience the interactive fiction, which is an aspect I have always enjoyed and valued in “regular” fiction as well. In this interactive fiction, the end or destination is not for treasure or distinct closure as in many IFs, but for insight and connection to Galatea. In this way, “Galatea” is overtly trying to be, and succeeding in being, expressly literary, which supports the earlier mentioned argument of Mary Ann Buckles that interactive fiction is literature.

While simply learning and interacting with interactive fiction is complex and difficult enough, it is even more frustrating and complicated to write it. There are so many different processes and aspects that go into creating a piece of interactive fiction that I found it very easy to get lost and overwhelmed with it all. First I had to come up with a basic idea for the IF as a starting or jumping off point. Since it was nearing Halloween, I decided to go for a good old fashioned murder mystery. Following the concept is the creation of the IF world through a drawn out map. This map is important because otherwise it would be very easy to get confused about what goes where and how to get to it, since interactive fiction uses compass directions (north, south, east, west) in order for the player-character to move around the IF world. Once this map is completed, it is time to move on to the nitty-gritty – using specific software to write the IF and bring it to fruition. This is when the process really starts to become really frustrating.

The software that I used, Inform 7, is really very advanced in most ways – there are so many things a writer of IF can do to create a fascinating, complex, believable interactive story. The frustration comes with the specificities and limitations of the software. There is a precise way needed to write things in order for the software to understand what it is the writer wants done – particular codes that must be inputted for relatively simple outcomes. For example, when you want to have a non-player character interact with the player-character through speech, this is the input you have to enter: “Talking to is an action applying to one visible thing. Understand ‘talk to [someone]’ or ‘converse with [someone]’ as talking to. Check talking to: say ‘[The noun] doesn’t reply.’” Then you would have to type: “Instead of talking to (someone): say ‘[one of] “(what you want the character to say).” [or] “(what you want the character to say).” [stopping]’.” When the command is processed through the software, it ends up looking much different, as the technical jargon obviously does not show up in the execution of the final product. So an input like this:

Instead of talking to Rachael:

say "[one of] 'Hey Rach, how are you?' [paragraph break] She moves closer so you can hear her better and says, 'I'm good! I'm so glad you came, I know you were considering staying home tonight.' [or] 'Yeah, I decided I'd rather not be home alone on Halloween,' you say, flattered that she's happy you're here. [paragraph break] 'It's a good thing you did,' she says, 'I heard they're doing something really crazy tonight.' You wonder what she means. [or] 'How crazy?' [paragraph break] She shrugs, saying, 'I'm not sure, I just heard that the fright is going to be over the top this year, extremely scary.' [paragraph break] You become uneasy, and hope the surprise isn't too frightening. Suddenly, a scream breaks out, high-pitched and bone-chilling. Silence descends upon the room, leaving only the sounds of music from the speakers. Heads turn toward the library and warily people start filing through its doorway. [stopping]".

that I included in my own interactive fiction ends up being seen by the interactor like this:

So although the process is tedious and at times annoying, the outcome is satisfying, knowing that you successfully created an important and interesting aspect of a piece of interactive fiction.

Although I enjoyed writing my own interactive fiction, I must admit that doing so is not as satisfying to me as writing a “regular” piece of fiction. For me, the process of writing fiction is already complicated and difficult enough without adding the extra frustrations that go along with the software needed to create an interactive fiction. I immensely enjoy writing, and while I did enjoy creating my very own IF, I personally feel a greater sense of satisfaction in writing a typical piece of fiction. The reason for this most likely ties into the sheer frustration I felt in creating my IF, for even though I have definitely been frustrated while writing “normal” fiction, it was much more difficult for me to write an IF simply because of the boundaries of the software and my own limited control over the story. I say limited control because even though I am creating it, it is not solely mine: the interactor of the piece will always have at least some small part in shaping the story and how it unfolds for them. While I believe that this is generally a positive thing that makes for a rich experience for the interactor, I admit that I am selfish and territorial when it comes to my writing, and that is simply a personal perspective. However, even though I freely admit that I more fully enjoy writing “regular” fictions as opposed to interactive ones, I do believe that creating an interactive fiction is a rewarding and valuable experience, especially for those vested in exploring and furthering English literature and the study of it in all its facets.

E-Poetry/Powerpoint Blog

                My experiences so far with electronic literature have not at all been what I expected. I assumed that electronic literature involved reading e-books and finding texts online, but it is much more. It is a participatory experience between the piece of electronic literature and its reader. A person does not simply “read” electronic literature, but interacts and “plays” with it. An e-poem is so much different than a regular poem that is written on a page because there is more to read and see than is laid out for a reader. However, the two are similar in that both can be frustrating and difficult to read and write, but can also be very interesting and rewarding.

                In Deena Larsen’s “A Quick Buzz Around the Universe of Electronic Poetry,” she talks about the symbiociation of electronic poetry. Symbiociation, Larsen explains, is the association of all of the different aspects of a piece of electronic poetry: the association of the words and the sounds, between the sounds and the images, the association of symbols, et cetera. It is a mutually beneficial, give and take relationship between all that makes that piece of electronic literature poetry. A perfect example of the power of symbiociation is the e-poem by Robert Kendall titled “A Study in Shades.” In this piece, there are two pictures, one of a man and one of a woman, and underneath both pictures are stanzas that the reader clicks through in the progression of the poem. With each stanza that the reader clicks through under the man’s picture, the picture of the woman gets lighter until it disappears completely. Contrastingly, with each stanza that the reader clicks through of the woman’s story, the picture of the man gets darker until he is only a vague silhouette.

The text of the poem explains that the man has Alzheimer’s Disease and the woman is his daughter. By having the pictures change with the progression of the disease, the reader is able to more fully understand that the memories that the father has of the daughter are disappearing and, consequently, the daughter is less and less able to clearly “see” her father. This connection of images and words, the symbiociation in the piece, helps to more adequately render the meaning of the poem to the reader, and that is why the symbiociation of e-poetry is such an important aspect of digital poetry.  

As Talan Memmott explains in his article, “Beyond Taxonomy: Digital Poetics and the Problem of Reading,” classifying the elements within electronic poetry, as well as electronic poetry itself, is problematic. It is extremely difficult to come to a single and concise explanation or definition of what electronic literature it, what makes it and how it works. There are so many different kinds of digital poetry, as well as the programs that make and run it and these are constantly changing as new ones are being added all of the time and old ones are being refigured and refined. It is, however, according to Memmott, imperative to remember three very distinct and important aspects of electronic poetry: the material aspect, the performative aspect and the computational aspect. The material is the content – what is the poem saying, what is its underlying meaning, what is it talking about, et cetera. The performative is, as the name implies, the performance of the piece, its interactions with the reader and the interaction of all of the aspects within the piece. The computational is the programming underneath the digital poem that allows it to perform and interact the way it does. Memmott stresses that people must be willing to accept the constantly changing taxonomy of digital poetry, and even embrace the inherent changes, because the field of electronic literature will always be developing and evolving along with the developments and evolutions of electronic media.

One aspect that Memmott argues is constant in electronic poetry is its ability to “cause thinking.” In fact, Memmott believes that this ability is its greatest potential. Digital poetry causes thinking because there is so much going on in one piece of e-poetry that a reader is forced to think differently about it than a poem on a page. In other words, it causes thinking because different brain functions or processes are being used than would normally be used for a “regular” poem – different brain muscles are being exercised, so to speak. An example of an e-poem exerting its ability to cause thinking is Deena Larsen’s “Stained Word Window.” In this piece, there is the focal image of an X intertwined in an octagon, and in the different sections that these shapes form together and various words. When a reader hovers his or her mouse over one of the words, text appears on the side which goes into deeper detail of that word. Also, within the text that appears, certain words are underlined and if the reader clicks on the underlined words, it bring him or her to the text of one of the other words in one of the other sections.

This causes thinking because the reader understands that all of these words are connected, even though they are separated into different sections. The reader must then think about how and why all of these words are connected, why certain underlined words connect to certain sectioned words, what the text explains for each of the words it appears for, et cetera. Due to the very nature of electronic literature, a reader must consider the reasons behind each aspect of association and interaction in a piece of e-poetry. This “figuring out” of the why’s and how’s is the thinking that electronic literature has the ability to cause.

This new process of understanding poetry was very difficult for me to work through at first. I have only ever read and analyzed “regular” poetry, and so I had no idea how to approach electronic poetry. Reading and analyzing electronic poetry is no better or worse, in my opinion, than reading and analyzing poetry on a page, it is just different, and, like any new skill one is learning, must be practiced and approached with an open mind. Electronic poetry can be very overwhelming, and this can be discouraging to a new reader, as I found it discouraging in the beginning. However, I have also found that by giving it a chance and really trying to comprehend it, it does become easier to interact with and understand. As with “regular” poetry, it become almost instinct or second nature to look for and find the aspects that most fully convey the meaning of the piece. It becomes easier to understand what is significant in the piece, why a poet did what he or she did and how it all works together to help further the meaning or message of the poem.

Memmott believes that in order to be a critic of digital poetry one should have tried to write it or participate in it in some way because otherwise one will not have any sort of understanding (or at least not a satisfactory one) of what it really is or how it works. I agree with this belief wholeheartedly. Before attempting my own piece of digital poetry I did not know how to criticize it appropriately. In other words, I did not understand how to create an e-poem (let alone how difficult it was to do so) and I therefore did not fully comprehend the choices a poet would make in the production of digital poetry. I did not understand why e-poets thought that doing this or doing that would further their pieces – I did not fully understand the choices they made or how they came to make those decisions and then implement them. After creating my own e-poem, I have a much better understanding of the whole process. I more fully comprehend why certain choices are made because I had to make them myself and I understand the implementation of them because I had to figure out how to implement the aspects I wanted in my piece.

It is extremely difficult to write an e-poem. I used Microsoft PowerPoint in creating my e-poem and there are so many different choices one can make as an e-poet using this program, and sometimes these choices become confusing and overwhelming. It is difficult to decide on one effect and once a decision is made it is very easy to second guess yourself, and the process then becomes very time-consuming because these second-guesses become third- and fourth-guesses. There were many times during my writing when I took so long trying to perfect a specific characteristic that I lost sight of what I was trying to say as a whole and only focused on the visual aspects. Then I would have to start all over again to make sure my message was clear and wasn’t being lost in all of the complicated images and effects. In writing electronic poetry, it is important to remember that more is not always better. In fact, one of the aspects of my piece that I am most proud of I appreciate because of its simplicity. It is the part of my poem that reads, “Burn time, waste time, kill/ the lights/ And glow/ with melted-butter brightness.” These lines are split up between two different slides, the first one containing “Burn time, waste time/ kill,” and the second slide containing the rest. The part that I am proud of is the transition between slides because when it moves to the second, the background is completely black while the words “the lights” flicker in white before the remaining words shimmer, or glow, into appearance on the bottom in a butter-yellow color.

I feel that the simplicity of actually having “the lights” go out so suddenly enforces for the reader what it is like when it happens to them, and therefore makes the poem more relatable and easier to understand. Once you understand what it is you are trying to convey and how best to convey it through the media of electronic poetry, the actual writing of it is not that much different from writing a “regular” poem. Even with all of the effects and aspects that can be used in writing a digital poem, the unique creativity and the message behind it are still the most important characteristics for both forms of poetry.

E-Poetry/Powerpoint Blog