Tag Archives: week 10

Digital Literature, A screen and page

Posted on by
2

Between Page and Screen is an incredibly interesting and creative piece of digital literature. The pairing between using a physical book and using a screen to read it relies on two tools, the book and the digital device, instead of only one. When reading the book through the reflection of the webcam a reader can also see themselves, they can see themselves reading and reacting to the story, which is uncommon, unless someone reads in front of a mirror. This aspect, seeing oneself while reading, makes readers more aware of how a work makes them feel, they can see the surprise, sadness, or joy on their own faces.

The appearance of the text relies on both a webcam and the book. Without both the text is unreadable and causes the reader to have to shelve the book or look back at the webcam disappointed. By having to hold up the book to the screen a reader must feel comfortable relying on digital technology, and the technology has to rely on the person. I find it interesting that typically only a person relies on a device, but in this scenario, the device must also rely on the person to be able to have the book to read and take symbols from, that is a unique interaction. I would like to see more pieces of digital literature like this, ones that ask for cooperation between a person and their device, not just usage in one direction, but an actual partnership between the screen.

Between Page and Screen is what I also imagine using AI generators like ChatGPT must be like for those who use it to create images of documents. In generating images from prompts the computer and the person must, “talk,” through the chat box to produce work that is made by the computer by inspired by the words of the person. In Between Page and Screen the reader communicates with the computer while turning the page and presenting the glyphs and the screen speaks back through translating the book’s story.

Week 10: Electronic literature

Posted on by
1

When reading about Electronic literature, I was intrigued with the way it developed over time. When the term was first created it was in reference to literature that was stored online, and now electronic literature refers more to hypertext fiction. I thought this was an interesting development, one I had never thought or known about before: I know nothing about electronic literature. Referencing back to Professor Pressman’s lecture about electronic lit and patchwork girl, she distinguished the differences between the two as Patchwork girl has hypertext. This new era of electronic literature and hypertext has created more interactive work and pieces of Fiction. To me, a hypertext sounds complicated and annoying to navigate, but I also find it so interesting and creative that people are able to create cohesive fiction with hypertext. It is for sure a certain aesthetic of creative work and writing, one some might have a harder time with, but I do find it very interesting how this works as a concept and how digital literature has developed over the years. “We encounter electronic literature as both a reading experience and an application, an artifact that may also encompass the tool used to produce it.” (Rettburg 3) So basically the creator of a hypertext or digital work is also a viewer and a reader at the same time, the idea of intermedia. This is an interesting context of digital media: the viewer and the reader might be having the same experience because aren’t you doing both at the same time? I found the reading “Electronic Literature” interesting in this context and it has made me think more about how I real electronic literature versus a physical book or text.

This type of literature is experimental literature, but I also think that all literature is experimental. What even separates the two? I guess format and guidelines, formal literary devices and context. But I think its interesting to think about electronic lit in this context. It lacks the normal infastructure of what literature usually is. But E-lit does create more of an experimental state unlike other forms of lit. This text mainly got me thinking about our discussion on Thursday with the modernists. They were experimenting with form and content, much like hypertext in digital lit. You can’t separate form and content with digital literature, much like what this text was saying. The tools of something effects its content, which we see with e-lit and hypertexts. Overall, a lot of thoughts abut this reading and electronic lit in general: but I think it is so interesting and I am excited to learn more!

Digital Literature – A Quiet Collaboration

Posted on by
2

Reading Scott Rettberg’s text on electronic literature, one line in particular really stuck with me. “What is really meant by ‘electronic literature’ is that the computer (or the network context) is in some way essential to the performance or carrying out of the literary activity in question” (p. 169). At first, it sounds very technical, like something you would read in a definition. But the more I thought about it, the more it started to make sense and give me a new perspective on how I see writing. Usually, the computer feels like background noise. A tool that quietly does what we tell it to. We type, it records. Simple. But Rettberg’s line flips that. It suggests that the computer is not simply the surface where writing appears. It is part of how writing happens.

That shift feels small, but it is huge. It means the computer is not just a container for words. It is a participant in them. The text depends on it. Its speed, its memory, even its glitches. The poem or story does not just sit there waiting to be read. It moves, reacts, performs. In a sense, it breathes through code. I like how this idea makes the act of writing feel less lonely. The computer becomes a quiet collaborator. Every click, every pause, every bit of code is part of the exchange. It makes me think that writing on a computer has always been a kind of dialogue, we just didn’t notice it. Maybe we never really wrote on machines, but have been writing with them all along.

Rettberg says that electronic literature “takes advantage of the capabilities and contexts provided by the stand-alone or networked computer”. (169) That line makes me think about how the machine brings its own possibilities like light, sound, movement, randomness. It adds time to text. Suddenly, literature isn’t something still, but something that happens. You don’t just read it, you watch it unfold. And that brings a strange kind of intimacy. When the computer becomes part of the writing, it also becomes part of us. The screen holds not just our words, but our gestures, our rhythms, the small hesitations between thoughts. It feels less like using a tool and more like sharing a process.

Maybe that’s what Rettberg’s essay leaves behind. The sense that writing and technology aren’t opposites. They have always been connected and electronic literature just makes that visible. It reminds us that meaning isn’t only made by what we write, but by what responds. The page, the screen, the machine that starts to write back.

Digital Literature’s Short Shelf Life

Posted on by
1

Digital literature, hypertext, hyperlinks, and electronic literature are all extreamly new terms in my vocabulary. I have never thought about literature made on the computer made for reading on the computer. This is partly because I am incredibly digitally illiterate and try to focus more on physical books that I can feel and touch. However, stepping into this digital world of literature is more fascinating than I ever thought it could be. It is experimental and fresh, taking from the past and making it into the new. As seen in the text, Electronic Literature, “We encounter electronic literature as both a reading experience and an application, an artifact that may also encompass the tool used to produce it. (page, 173)” This short quote articulates that form and media directly affect the form and content. This then affects how a person will read it and how long it stays relevant in our ever-changing world. There are also connections to be made about how media forms from the past affect the media forms we practice and consume today. The past and present are constantly in communication; in the same way, there is always a feedback loop between the arts. I am learning that it is very important to understand this when studying literature and its history. Especially, if you are doing research in media archeology, looking at artifacts and archives. This quote directly speaks to this, touching on the fact that an artifact will encompass the tool used to produce it. Therefore, writing something on a typewriter will create a different product than writing on the computer or by hand. Also, the affordability of paper will influence how long something may be or if it is lengthy or condensed. The main idea here is that it is impossible to ignore the form used to produce media. We live in a purposeful, obsolete culture where media dies. This is why digital literature will have a very short shelf life. This literature is hard to archive; software is always adapting and changing. In contrast to a book, which takes a physical form and can be preserved and kept safe from damage. Anything digital is not safe and is susceptible to deletion. This is all so fascinating, and I am so excited to be learning this, especially since we live in such a digital age, and im trying to be less digitally illiterate.