glog for 11/07

On page 119 Birkerts says, “Many educators say that our students are less and less able to read, or analyze, or write with clarity and purpose. Who can blame the students?” His statement shows a dramatic change in tone and seems to contradict what he said earlier in the book. He seems much more understanding and empathetic of our generation at this point in the text. I agree with what he’s saying; it’s not our fault that we have not been correctly taught the way to analyze text and write effectively. It has got to be some sort of domino effect. Those generations who were so knowlegable, wrote such great novels, and understood how to analyze obviously did not know how to teach what they knew. Each generation after became successively worse than the generation before. Or maybe the generations became increasingly distracted and uninterested. Technology is very distracting, and paired with bad teachers, what do you expect? Patchwork Girl is a great example of the technology’s tendency to draw attention away from more important things. I’ve tried to navigate the program numerous times, and I still have not figured it out. I barely even remember what I read during my time with the program; my main focus was always on trying to figure out StorySpace. Also, it makes it even more confusing to me when Jackson throws StorySpace instructions into the text of the electronic “novel”. Now, I know that PG is somewhat of an exaggerated version of electronic text and that it is different and more foreign for most of us than internet navigation, but it really does make you realize how much different electronic text is from a good old printed novel.

I really like Birkert’s suggestion to imagine a time before TV. I don’t think that is something that many of us think about alot, if at all. What was the world like without computers, television, the metro, and cars? Well, just being in Chestertown for a couple months has made me realize how awesome the metro is, but I have never really considered the impact of electronics. Anyways, he suggests that we read a novel written during a time when there was no TV. He tells us to “move through the sequence of a character’s day and then juxtapose the images and sensations you find with those in the life of the average urban or suburban dweller today.” I think that would be a really interesting topic to read/write about. I don’t think we realize how different our lives would be if we grew up in a different time period. I, for one, don’t really think about stuff like that. I think we’re all kind of stuck in the here and now. We take things for granted and don’t let our minds wander. A little mind-wandering might do our generation some good.

As quoted from school superintendent Robert Calabrese in the Boston Globe, “You have to remember that the children of today have grown up with the visual media. They know no other way and we’re simply capitalizing on that to enhance learning.” Why do they want to make it easier for us? Yeah, yeah, we learn better that way; I’m not arguing with that at all, but why settle for incompetence in important areas such as reading and writing? It’s not our fault, but it is extremely unacceptable. Let’s face it, not all children love to read, but who’s to say that they wouldn’t love it if they were introduced to it in the right way?  Every once in a while teachers should let their students choose books that interest them. When reading is misconstrued to kids as a pasttime only for nerds and something that cannot be fun, they will never enjoy it.

Glog! on Halloween!!!

The medium by which the text is conveyed has a huge influence on the way the text is interpreted. I believe this is called “specificity of media”. As Hayles describes, a book is a “square with the sides and corners torn off”. While some people may not be able to get past the medium of a book, others absolutely cannot overlook the StorySpace program which Patchwork Girl opens with on the computer. While some may think that PG is “sophisticated and playful”, I respectfully DISAGREE! I think that the technology actually is, as Professor Meehan suggested in class, quite limited. The program was created a long time ago (a long time for me, at least), which was evident when the dialog box came up after I put the CD in. One of the folders available to open was the Mac OS Classic version. Now, I don’t know much about computer operating systems so I clicked on that folder. Another box came up telling me that I could not choose that option basically because Mac OS Classic is obsolete and the program would not work on the more sophisticated “Mac OS X Version 10.5.5″.

So, what would make this program easier? Why is it so confusing even though its such old technology? I think it just needs to be redone completely. I love Jackson’s idea of making text more interactive and interesting, but PG is a failure in my opinion. Technology has advanced so much in the last 15 years, making PG obsolete. A newer version with tutorials and better graphics would be awesome. We’re used to iPhones and Mac computers; we want something that’s user-friendly and does alot of cool shit! Maybe PG just doesn’t offer us enough things to do and places to go. It isn’t connected to the internet and has a clear end; there’s a definite point where you cannot go any further.

I think it’s funny that Hayles refers to us as “cyborgs”; It really is true. I feel lost and helpless without my cell phone, even when I’m with other people! And what would we do without computers and the internet?! I wouldn’t even be writing this assignment if we didn’t have any of that. Technology has been fully integrated into everyday life and there’s absolutely no turning back… unless, of course, there’s some major power outtage and all those satellites in space get out of whack. Don’t those satellites keep track of the time on earth somehow? WOULD WE EVEN HAVE TIME IF WE DIDN’T HAVE SATELLITES?! Maybe I just made that out of nowhere, but we most certainly would not know what the weather would be like in advance, and that would be terrible!!! HOW WOULD WE KNOW HOW TO DRESS OURSELVES?! Did I mention no TV, as well???

my thoughts on Writing Machines OCT10

What is with all of the terminology?!?!? I noticed a change in Hayles’s style in these chapters. Her writing became much more expository as opposed to the narrative that she used in the first two chapters. When I first started reading this book I thought I would enjoy it; it seemed interesting and I thought she took an interesting approach to the subject of technology’s influence on writing. I changed my mind. Although I still love the idea that she is focusing on technology and the differences between electronic text and printed text, I am not thrilled that she has gone into such depth about the tech aspect of it.

I’m slightly technologically challenged; it’s so confusing to me when she tries to explain all of these different terms and aspects of technology. My understanding of hypertext is a text that cross-references and links the reader (physically, electronically, emotionally, and/or mentally) to a different text. It’s a somewhat intriguing concept, but that is where Hayles lost me…

What is the difference between cybertext and hypertext? I don’t see that there is much of one. Also, what is a technotext?! The definition that Hayles gives is wordy and confusing; I think it is nothing more than a text where the writer questions the medium of the text itself. I wish there was somebody to tell me whether or not I’m right!!! But if my definition of technotext is correct, what is the difference between that and a material metaphor? In class we discussed how a material metaphor “foregrounds the traffic between words and physical artifacts” (22). Are books physical artifacts? Will we someday have no need for physical books and turn our full attention to e-texts?

Hayles mentions something about a language which can be written and enacted, but not spoken. She spoke of it as if it was a language not yet created but one that society might devise. Sorry, Hayles, but we already have that. Text messages and online chatting are a language of their own. Society’s use of acronyms and abbreviations through these mediums makes it a completely different language. I suppose it is technically possible to speak this language, but it sounds stupid. It’s like those cell phone commercials where the actors speak in text message language and say only letters. It’s a little bit ironic that the public can understand what they are saying without subtitles.

I disagree with Hayles’s premise that electronic text is not a “transparent interface” (43). To me, it is much easier to read electronic text and actually pay attention to what the text is about. Books are much more apparent as a medium; I notice the physical book more than I notice the computer screen. That could just be a Generation X thing… Speaking of Generation X, I feel like I am not a part of her target audience. I thought that I was in the beginning, but now I’m confused about what she is trying to say and the point she wants to make. A lot of the things she explains seem somewhat irrelevant to the average person reading her book; I should not have to be a computer geek to understand what she’s talking about, but maybe that is who she is speaking to.

Frankenstein thru Chapt 21

I now understand better the relevance of the writing machines topic to Frankenstein. Reading and writing emerge as a topic of the book in two ways.

The first and most obvious way that the book addresses reading and writing is through its style. Shelley catches the audience’s attention by using letters and highly detailed narratives from the viewpoint of different characters. The book is extremely descriptive and, in my opinion, a little bit wordy. She maintains the audience’s attention by throwing in different ways of telling the story, such as the monster’s account of what happened to him, Elizabeth’s letters, and Victor’s story (which I actually forgot about until I recalled them having been on the boat in the beginning of the novel). It’s very interesting to me that the monster can even verbalize his story to Victor, which leads me to my next point.

The second reason for my realization was that the monster was interested in “words and letters” and communication. He speaks of finding a “leathern portmanteau, containing several articles of dress and some books. [He] eagerly seized the prize, and returned with it to my hovel. Fortunately the books were written in the language, the elements of which I had acquired at the cottage… The possession of these treasures gave me extreme delight.” (115) He is in awe of the concept of language and is very excited to learn as much about it as possible.

The story itself is very depressing. Why is Victor so scared of the monster, something he had spent so much time and energy on? He does not even give it a chance and flees as soon as it awakens. The monster is unhappy and feels isolated, just as Victor felt as he was creating it. It’s interesting that Victor purposefully and knowingly put himself in that lonely situation while the monster wants to become friends with people and is curious about life, but is shot down and is forced to be alone.

I started to feel bad for the monster as he told his story about being cold, alone, and without food. He seems to hold the capacity for human emotion even though he is basically a bunch of dead body parts sewn together. He tries to help out the impoverished family by gathering firewood for them during the night. He is intrigued at their unhappiness. “If such lovely creatures were miserable, it was less strange that I, and imperfect and soliatary being, should be wretched. Yet why were these gentle beings unhappy? They possessed a delightful house and every luxury.” I think that this event, along with when he is not fully accepted by the cottagers, discourage him from being a good ‘person’, being, or whatever you want to call him.

It is difficult for an emotionally strong person to be ostracized and alienated; it was extremely difficult on the confused monster. He wants acceptance and nobody trusts him or wants to be around him. People are very judgemental. When he saves the little girl from drowning, the man shoots him solely because he does not know what the monster is. Why does he continue to be looked down upon even though he has done nice things for people? The monster just wants to be loved. “To be friendless is indeed to be unfortunate.”

When he can read well, he reads the journals and notes that Victor left in the pocket of his clothes which further dispirits him. He then pretty much just goes on a rampage, which makes me feel not as bad for him.

Although he seems perfectly capable of feeling unhappy and lonely, why does he not feel guilt? Victor and the monster and extreme opposites in this sense. Victor feels the guilt for the terrible actions that the monster committed, as opposed to the monster feeling the guilt for himself. Victor feels bad that he created something that has caused so much damage (the deaths of William, Clerval, and, indirectly, Justine). The monster killed Victor’s brother William because he was mad about all that had happened to him previously (and of course the fact that William is related to Victor). He shows absolutely no remorse for the murder OR for framing Justine and her subsequent death. Why is he incapable of this important emotion?

The part where I really stop feeling bad for the monster is when he threatens Victor and forces him to create a female companion for him. I understand that he wants someone to love who is like him and will not judge him, but does he really think that threatening V will make anything better? He wants to be “free of misery”, so why does he want to make other people miserable? I’m sorry, but telling people that you are going to kill their family, and then actually doing it, is NOT the way to get sympathy.

Even though some people might say that it is Victor’s fault for creating the monster, he at least feels guilty for it. He ultimately refuses to create a companion for the monster so he obviously realizes his mistake. He has terrible nightmares following the death of his closest friend and feels guilty about the deaths of William and Justine as well. While Victor maybe was crazy to make him in the first place, the monster itself is malicious and cruel.

Styles

Right away I noticed a difference in the style of writing that Hayles uses. Although I enjoyed reading Birkerts’s tangents and being sucked into what he is saying, I think I may like Hayles’s style better. She is very clear in what she is doing; she does not try to hide anything and seems to be very secure about her opinions and thoughts (unlike Birk.) I like the way that she set up her story and told the reader exactly what she was going to do. (“Although there are autobiographical elements in the persona who will be written in these narrative chapters, no one should confuse her with me. To mark that crucial difference… I will call her— Kaye.” pg.10) From the very start, the readers know exactly what’s going and aren’t confused about what she’s saying.

In GE, Birkerts doesn’t really explain why he reads so much and why he is so weird about it. He hints at it by talking about his reading mother and non-reading father. Hayes states plainly why she likes reading and her experiences with technology. From page 11: “Although dinner conversations at home were invariably lively and wide-ranging, the small town offered little other food for the mind… So early she turned to books, finding them the range of experience, intensity of thought, and expanse of imagination missing in her tiny midwestern town.” She then goes on to explain how her family first got a tv when she was 9, etc. I think it’s more admirable for Hayes to have given technology a chance than the way the Birkerts almost denies that he is around technology or knows anything about it… other than the fact that it’s evil or whatever he believes…

Hayes’s quote on page 9, the FIRST page of the chapter, perfectly describes Birkerts. While describing the different types of people, she states, “Still another is comprised by the people initiating the change and resisting it, writing books and creating digital environments, struggling to see what electronic literature means and ignoring its existence altogther.” <— That’s Birkerts. He thinks his way is the best way and refuses to go about things in a way that is different for him. He is arrogant and looks down on people who do not read the “right” books the “right” way.

Hayes’s style flows much better and is not complaining or gloomy like in Frankenstein and GE. In Frankenstein RW is very whiny and craves his sister’s attention. At the end of every letter he’s basically like “Everything sucks. I wish I was home with you. Hopefully I won’t die before I can write to you again.” Why doesn’t he just go home then?! The letters capture the readers attention, but not necessarily in a good way. It’s the same with GE. Birkerts is constantly complaining. His sentence structure grabs your attention; he is obviously very passionate about books and NON-technology, but that isn’t how most people are today. It is interesting to hear/read/learn about differing opinions, but I don’t know how much more of this book I can read if it continues on like this…

Parochialism- having a limited or narrow outlook or scope; see entry for Birkerts

Is Writing Machines written as a response to Gutenberg Elegies? Hayles seems to refute the exact point that Birkerts tries to make…”When she first encountered the desktop computer and understood it could be used to create literary texts, she realized that everything important to her met in the nexus of this material-semiotic object… When used for electronic literature, it gave her the same keen pleasure as the print novels she loved, though through different sensory and kinesthetic modalitites.” (pg 15) Hayles says exactly what I tried to convey in my last blog, just using fewer words and better vocabulary.

So how do these two people feel completely differently about technology when they’re in the same generation. They both are half and half. Neither grew up around it and immersed in it but have had to become accustomed to it at an older age. They both love books and reading, but why can’t Birkerts get over himself and read online or AT LEAST stop criticizing people for doing so?!?!

GE: my thoughts as of now

“Attention spans have shrunk and fragmented…” pg xiv

Birkerts is already assuming an elitist position and he’s not even finished with the introduction yet. Although I agree with his statement, he hints that he is separate from the crowd that does not read. There are some people who love reading just as much as he does. Let me name a few people: Sara, this girl I hung out with in middle school named Elaine… umm…. Yeah, the list ends there. I read sometimes. Magazines. msnbc.com. Hey, I read half of Apex Hides the Hurt!!! (That’s more than most of my fellow classmates read, let me assure you.) Maybe we’re just interested in different stuff. If we had a choice in the books that we read in high school, we might have actually READ the books and not used sparknotes and bullshitted our papers.

So who’s fault is it that our generation refuses to read and cannot pay attention to save their lives?! Our teachers who choose books about stuff we can’t relate to? Or should we just blame our parents like we always do… I like that option actually. Blame the parents.

I fully admit that I have no attention span. I think most of the kids that I know have ADD to some degree. Just as he says on page 19, “…they were not, with a few exceptions, readers— never had been; that they had always occupied themselves with music, TV, and videos; that they had difficulty slowing down enough to concentrate on prose of any density.” While reading GE I was constantly struggling to ignore the distractions of the TV, music, and my cell phone (not to mention groups of girls running down the hallway). It did not help that the first half of the chapter was extremely dense and boring. After a certain point it started to interest me. I think it was around page 18 or 19 (and I only say that because that’s where I see the highlighting begin to start in my copy of the book). Yeah, it’s true. I have no patience to go back and reread to try to find where it got more engaging. That’d take me another 2 hours. I know it’s sad that it took me such a long time to read like 30 pages. Don’t lie to yourself though; you all know it took you just as long. I was texting people, okay?! I’m actually really happy that I highlighted as I was reading, because I would not even know where to begin while writing this blog.

Speaking of quotes:

“But the implicaations, as I began to realize, were rather staggering, especially if one thinks of this not as a temporary generational disability, but rather as a permanent turn.”  pg 20

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS! Not only is our generation effed up, but so are our kids, grandkids, etc. I mean at least we’re ALLLL mentally handicapped together… i guess? He’s right, however. It IS a permanent change, as much as he would love for everyone to regress back to the times when computers and that sort of technology were not so prevalent. Does he honestly think that him writing a book about the terrible effects of tech is going to make everyone suddenly open their eyes and say, “HEY! Ya know what? We should throw our TVs out the window and go to the bookstore!” I understand his concerns about society as a whole (or at least for the most part) having absolutely no attention span. But, what is the difference between books and TV? At least we are still finding some ways to stimulate our brains. I personally would rather watch the discovery health channel than MTV or something like that. People will never stop finding new ways to stimulate their minds. We still want to be fascinated by things and be engrossed by stories; most of us just prefer to watch it, listen to it, or even read it online!

Reading online is not any less credible than reading a book. We have awesome search engines that help us get any and all of the information that we could ever need AND we don’t have to waste our time searching for it in a bunch of papers bound together.

“What made me a reader were the experiences I got from the books themselves.”

So, what makes me a TV watcher, a music listener, a cell phone talker are the experiences that I get from the movies and TV shows, the songs, and my conversations. At least we are open about what we do and do not feel the need to hide it and ISOLATE ourselves. Today’s world is completely connected; life is more fun if you’re social. Why be ashamed of your hobbies or what you do in your free time? I’m proud of myself and the things that I enjoy. Why does Birkerts claim that he’s so much better than us just because he enjoys himself by way of a different medium. AND why does he continue to read if “books no longer tap his emotions quite so directly; he’s rarely brought to tears or fury.” Maybe we feel the same way. Maybe books don’t grab our attention or emotions enough to really drag us in. Maybe that’s why we turn to TV and music. We need video and audio stimulation because we want to be emotionally involved in what we are doing. We want that “churning anxiety” that he gets from reading, but books just don’t do it for most of us because we are so used to the constant stimulation. We’re looking for “characters whose lives could absorb us for a few hours” as well.

Why does Birkerts think that he is so different from us?