John Lamothe
Professor Saper
ENG 6801
Module 3, Part 1
Response to Chapter 1 of Electronic Literature
As stated in the “Read Me” introduction to Electronic Literature, Hayles’s objective in this particular work is “to help electronic literature move into the classroom” (ix). Toward that end, chapter 1 attempts to accomplish three main goals—1. Offer the first (according to Hayles) systematic survey of the entire field of electronic literature, 2. Demonstrate the inherent differences between electronic literature and print literature, 3. Advocate a critical approach that “recognizes the specificity of networked and programmable media without sacrificing the interpretive strategies evolved with and through print” (25). As a whole, chapter 1 effectively works to foreground Hayles’s underlying argument that electronic literature deserves to be in the classroom and to preface the specific examples she discusses later in the work.
I’m not sure if Hayles intended the “Read Me” title to the introduction to be reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland (eat me, drink me), but as I began reading chapter 1, I had an overwhelming feeling that I was falling down the rabbit hole. On the surface, I can attribute this to the lengthy discussions of numerous texts that I’d never heard of…or even dreamt of. The thought of computational algorithms working in conjunction with text to create and recreate a reading randomly or to connect a text by way of GPS to a lived experience/environment is something I’d never considered. Hayles effectively demonstrates that the field of electronic literature is vast and varied and encompasses far more than the standard hypertext fiction that tends to be associated with it.
More significant, however, is the fact that the multilayered, “multimediumed ” nature of electronic literature creates complex interactions that demand a multifaceted approach to criticism. Even something as simple as a traditional text created on a computer has the additional layer of executable code to address critically, and as Hayles mentions when discussing the poetry of Brian Kim Stefans, any electronic reading involves “a two-way collaboration: between the programmer who works with the limitations of a computer language to create the program, and between the user and the computer when the computer [text] is read and interpreted” (27). When we start layering the various mediums that can be incorporated into an electronic text (i.e. hyperlinks, audio, flash, photos, etc)—all of which are modified or added to at a dizzying rate—the expertise and specificity required for an adequate critique expands exponentially. Certainly, print text requires a critical approach that accounts for numerous factors—genre, historical and social exigence, and postmodern decontruction just to name a few. But electronic literature requires all of those with the added layer of the text’s “electricy.” And unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), this isn’t a simple matter of adding a single additional layer because, as Hayles shows us in this survey, the “electronic” part of electronic literature draws upon more than just stand-alone computers. Where print text engages just one primary sense—sight—each new technology, each new interface, each new code or program forces the user/reader to use multiple senses or forces the user to interact with the text in ways not traditionally associated with a print text, thus “the possibilities for emergent meanings multiply exponentially through the differences, overlaps, and convergences of the instantiations compared with one another” (23). As I said, a distinct feeling of falling down a rabbit hole.
The third argument underlying Hayles’s first chapter is that although we can’t rely solely on critical tools developed for print mediums, we also shouldn’t completely abandon those interpretative strategies that we’ve relied upon thus far. She states this explicitly when she says, “In my view the optimal response requires both of these moves at once—recognizing the specificity of new media without abandoning the rich resource of traditional modes of understanding language, signification, and embodied interactions with texts” (24). However, this idea is underscored with each example of an electronic literature that she gives as she discusses each one in terms very familiar to traditional textual critique.
