Monthly Archives: February 2010

Hayles explores some complex aspects about “texts” in her chapter titled “Intermediation from Page to Screen.” She begins the chapter explaining that “all print books are digital files” in the sense that before a book is published it is an electronic text. I had not really thought about this before. I think many of us have this desire to hold on to “the good old times” when knowledge was acquired only through the “original” medium, books. Yet, book are composed and altered through electronic means. This reminded me of a scene in Sex and the City where Carrie talks about liking the smell and texture of old books, and how few people actually continue to check out books from the library (for leisure, since most students do it because we have to).

Hayles then explores the concept of intermediation which is made up of two aspects, dynamic heterarchies and fluid analogies. I felt really lost trying to follow her explanation of dynamical heterarchies until she used the analogy of the fetus in uterus, it makes sense as I can understand the interrelation between the two evolving bodies (p.46).

Hayles then expands her exploration further by analyzing the way that anthropologists have studied the effects of technology through time and space. In each stage, technological innovations seemed to substitute and revolutionize our culture. Hayles explains how computers have the “power to perform cognitively sophisticated acts with more flexibility, interactivity, and cognitive power” (p.48). She then continues the exploration of the complexity of computers and their effects. As an anthropologist, I question some of the theories she raises about Dennett’s “selfish genes” notion, as it echos some biological deterministic claims. However, Dennett does mention the importance of culture and other factors in this discussion.

I must confess that I feel a bit overwhelmed and confused with the terminology we’ve been exploring with the recent texts. Our class discussion was helpful in exploring the similarities and differences between hypertext and cybertext and the controversy between the two. Katherine Hayles chapter one, “Electronic Literature- What is it?” also provided an excellent overview of the complexity surrounding this term.

Hayles explains how the Electronic Literature Organization’s mission is “to promote the writing, publishing, and reading of literature in electronic media” (p.3). I thought it was helpful to explore this mission and the ways in which it may become realized through electronic media. I think that one of the main problems with acquiring an understanding of this term is the constant comparison with regular texts or published literature. Hayles however, explores the complexity of the various aspects of electronic literature and suggests that it really isn’t as different from published literature as we may think.

I also thought her discussion on Interactive Fiction or I.F. was quite interesting. She explains how it has stronger game elements and no clear distincition between electronic literature and games. This made me think of some of the games my children play and why they would be attracted to them. For example, my daughter loves playing Sims and knows about all the variations to this game. I wonder is the electronic literature imbedded in Sims is one that appeals to a particular age, gender, or personality type. I was also thinking of all the possibilities for students who combine an English degree with Media Studies to create more Interactive Fiction with electronic media. The success of Sims and games like Second Life indicate a growing market with much potential.

We all KNOW this stuff… but it’s still interesting to watch this video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8[/youtube]

I think that one of the most interesting things that this video brings up is change in the media landscape. Although many would say they are “mourning the loss” of print media, this video really shows that while one medium might be on the decline, there is a whole new medium of the internet that is opening up more possibilities for writing and communication that were not fully expressed with the print medium.

What will be absolutely necessary, and is starting to open, is for there to be effective ways to search through the millions and what will be billions of pages of the internet. I think there will also be better ways to establish legitimacy and accuracy on the web. So, although our generation may not be able to appreciate the “newness” of the first internet technologies, we are able to see the progression of internet material from total chaos to hopeful organization and legitimacy.

We spoke previously in class about normalization of technologies that may not be the best in their field – the QWERTY keyboard, VHS, horizontally rectangular computer screens, etc. A link to an old article on Wired reminded me of this conversation: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/make-google-gre/

Why is white the norm for site backgrounds? It is energy intensive; using a black background (http://www.blackle.com/) saves power (though not much on the large scale) and is much less injurious to my eyes. Does the normalization of whiteness in digital design stem from its normalization in the physical world? Do you find it harder, easier, or the same to use a black background rather than white? Personally, I dig the black screen because I find myself squinting less.

Doing some thesis research I came across this Wired article that relates to our class. Kevin Kelly interviews Ted Delson about hypertext and talks about the past/present/future of the internet. Good quote:

“I believed him. Despite his quirks, it was clear to me that a hyperlinked world was inevitable – someday. But looking back now, after 10 years of living online, what surprises me about the genesis of the Web is how much was missing from Vannevar Bush’s vision, Nelson’s docuverse, and my own expectations. We all missed the big story. The revolution launched by Netscape’s IPO was only marginally about hypertext and human knowledge. At its heart was a new kind of participation that has since developed into an emerging culture based on sharing. And the ways of participating unleashed by hyperlinks are creating a new type of thinking – part human and part machine – found nowhere else on the planet or in history.

Not only did we fail to imagine what the Web would become, we still don’t see it today! We are blind to the miracle it has blossomed into. And as a result of ignoring what the Web really is, we are likely to miss what it will grow into over the next 10 years. Any hope of discerning the state of the Web in 2015 requires that we own up to how wrong we were 10 years ago.”

Fore more: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html

if you are utterly confused playing Zork and don’t know what to type, read this: >http://www.eristic.net/games/infocom/zork1.html

it may take a little fun out of it, but it gets you started, instead of Zork telling you “I don’t understand..”