The more I look back on this blog, the more I realize where my personal interests lie in new media studies. Just like I said at the onset of this project, I'm interested in the ways in which new media can empower and give a "voice" to the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the minority. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, Jennifer Ley's "Catch a Landmine" uses contemporary audience's experiences with "pop-up" advertisements and makes a statement on cultural consumerism and the dehumanization of war. In this case, audiences' experiences with the internet seem to pointedly contrast audiences' lack of experience with landmines.
Another project, Chicken Soup for Your Corporate Ass, relies on audiences' experiences and awareness of the (sappy, emotionally manipulative) Chicken Soup for the Soul books; however, in this case, the Chicken Soup for Your Corporate Ass reveals stories of individuals disregarded, dehumanized, and devalued by the all-powerful corporate conglomerates. Authors William Gillespie and Ruth Wyman created Chicken Soup for Your Corporate Ass and publish it on wordwork.org, one of William's sites, which showcases William's work and that of many collaborators. And, while I could spend an entire semester analyzing wordwork.org, I will focus this discussion on the aforementioned Chicken Soup.
Specifically, the stories seem like short stories or character sketches that describe the ways in which five individual's lives intersect. In the end, just like in the print Chicken Soup for the Soul books, the selfish, greedy, and self-centered are punished. Gillespie and Wyman's stories seemed reminiscent of 253, a electronic literary novel by Geoff Ryman about a train crash and the different lives of the passengers on board. In both works, the characters' lives interact and converge with each other.
And, while the five stories in Chicken Soup for Your Corporate Ass could've been published in a linear, print-based media format, they are published online with hyperlinks connecting the characters and events in the stories together. In this case, the stories are connected to each other through links just as the characters' lives intersect in the stories. The hyperlinks, then, reinforce the intersection of these stories by more than name alone. Whereas in print-based media the stories would be presented in a linear fashion, with one story beginning where another one ends, online these stories can "carry on" simultaneously with all stories beginning and ending at similar moments.
Also, by publishing the stories online, they seem imbued with a more authenticity than they might've had if they were published in on paper. While they are a parody of the "could-be" true stories published in the Chicken Soup for the Soul books, they seem more authentic because there is nothing to argue that they couldn't be true. After all, companies exploit Korean workers everyday as in the "Chicken Soup for Your Transnational Ass"; workers are exposed to toxic chemicals as Victoria Washington was in the "Chicken Soup for Your Animal Experiemenation Ass"; and health insurance companies reject necessary medical claims because they are too expensive as in the "Chicken Soup for Your Health Insurance Ass."
Still, this degree of credibility and ethos seems contradictory for what one might expect for an online publication. After all, as an English instructor, I tell students to be leary of the material they read online--to be discerning and investigate the motives and agendas of any online source they might want to use in their works. However, in this case, the fact that these stories "seem" authentic and plausible seems to give them credibility that a print story might not have. As noted by the trAce Online Writing Center, parody seems more authentic online because "of the gullibility of readers and the difficulty in verifying textual authenticity." Perhaps, the popularity of "everyday journalists" and blogs contribute to the perceived authenticity of the story. Therefore, we read these individual's stories published online and accept them as (mostly) authentic.
Gillespie, William and Ruth Wyman. wordwork.org literature laboratory. 25 Nov 2005. http://www.wordwork.org/index.html
Gillespie, William and Ruth Wyman. Chicken Soup for Your Corporate Ass. 25 Nov 2005. http://www.wordwork.org/chickensoup/index.html
Ley, Jennifer. "Catch the Landmine" 25 Nov 2005. http://www.heelstone.com/amniotic/first.html
Ryman, Geoff. 253: A Novel for the Internet about London Underground in Seven Cars and a Crash. 8 Nov 2005. http://www.ryman-novel.com/
"The trAce Alt-X New Media Competition." trAce Online Writing Center. Jan 2001. 25 Nov 2005. http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/newmedia/shortlist.cfm#06
As the holidays approach and the semester comes to an end, I've been curious as to the amount of work I've done on this blog. First, I'm actually quite proud of it. It may not be the most insightful or inspiring analysis of electronic literature, but considering that my understanding of new media, and subsequently electronic literature, was next to nothing--I remember Cheri telling me she was in "Telematic Texts" last semester and thinking "Huh? That sounds so impossible"--I've come lightyears in just a few short months. So, while this may not be the smartest blog on the block, it kicked my butt.
My second thought was regarding how much work when into this teeny, tiny blog. Writing a semester blog seem easy? Hardly. I copied and pasted this bad-boy into Word and I'm at 9 pages single-spaced as we speak. Not to mention the comments--to which I owe Cheri, Ron Burnett, and Peter Howard my life, or at least a "thank you" note. But, beside the previously afore mentioned newfound knowledge in new media studies, I've learned something else in the process of writing this: first, the importance of audience. I understand why Dr. Grigar is so adamant that we engage in the discursive community and seek out electronic works. Because, I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to write and publish something of value only to have it "lost" in the abyss of the internet. And, second, the work and time that goes into electronic literature. On our class blog, elit, the discussion lately has been on the professional, scholarly, and administrative negative responses to technology and "alternative" forms of communication--like online classes and new media. (The resistance to each seems similar to me.) That somehow taking classes online are easier than those taken face-to-face and that those works published online are not as valuable or significant as those published on actual paper. But, I've found out (through my limited experience) that both online classes and electronic literary works are just as time-consuming and thought-provoking as those considered more "traditional."
I remember Deena Larsen talking about the time it took to create her work "Spritual Comfort" and how she essentially locked herself away for three months to produce that electronic poem. And, I remember being surprised by the time it took. I suppose in a day-and-age when I can get a blog started in five minutes, three months seemed odd to me. But, I understand now that since new media sources add to the literary experience by integrating sound, visuals,and hypertexts that all of those elements take time to create, integrate, and coordinate.
While I will be posting two or three more entries over the next few weeks as the semester comes to an end, I wanted to note that while this blog was a class project, I have learned a lot about new media. And, while I may be new to this discourse community and type of literary/discursive analysis, I'm proud of the progress I've made through sheer determination and butt-busting.
Deena Larsen, "Spirtual Comfort," http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol32/hypertext/index.html
For my blog this week, I wanted to spend some time working on my analysis for E-Lit and working out some of the comments and suggestions Dr. Grigar noted. Because, although we were only supposed to submit a 500-word essay (and mine was already 700, sorry Dr. G), there is still so much more I could've discussed in regard to the chapter.
So, first, let me post my summary and critique of Jack Post's chapter "Requiem for a Reader?" from Baeten and Van Looy's book, Close Reading New Media (I've provided Dr. G's comments also, in yellow, since I will respond to them at the latter part of the post):
Chapter 7: Closely Reading Jack Post’s “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature”
By Rochelle Gregory
Summary
By examining the companion website for Darren Aronofsky’s film Requiem for a Dream, Jack Post explores the ways in which texts, images, sound, voice, and music function in electronic literature in his article “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Post argues that website compliments the film by offering users another opportunity to experience the “paranoid experience and agonies of addiction”—precisely what the movie is about (124). I am happy that you have taken the time to check out the site. Good work.
Aronofsky and Florian Schmitt, designer of the site, achieve this experience by using Macromedia Flash to create an immersive space where users, as they move further into the site, have decreasing control over their environments. Specifically, the site is often unpredictable as sound disappears, pages become simply HTML-code, animated texts change their appearance, and photographic colleges appear artistic and abstract (128).
While Post’s article examines how the site uses images, sound, and texts to create an immersive experience, his article also presents a semiotic theory for examining electronic literature. Specifically, Post argues that the site’s texts, presented as Flash media, illustrate the ways that the signifier operates in terms of form and substance; however, Post’s semiotic theory of electronic literature privileges the signifier’s “appearance” or aesthetics over its “substance” or function (135). Texts, as they appear in electronic literature and other new media, create tensions between reading and looking—the totality of the signifier is determined by its visual, linguistic, and musical elements (137).
Your summary is good. I wonder what he implies with the title, though? What is a “requiem,” and why is there one for a reader?
Critique
In Edward Picot’s review of Close Reading New Media and Post’s piece, in particular, Picot argues that the article never achieves the purpose of closelyreading the texts of the website; specifically, Picot claims that the article involves “itself instead in a discussion of the different ways the site makes use of text.” And, Picot criticism of Post’s article are fair enough. It is good that you consult Picot’s review to kick off your critique.
Post establishes throughout the latter half of his article quite convincingly how new media presents texts as signifiers that operate both aesthetically and functionally; still, the article fails to apply this critical theory in depth to the Requiem for a Dream site. Rather, Post first discusses how Aronofsky and Florian’s site compliment(s) the experience offered in the film; Post then presents his semiotic theory concerning the duality of the signifier in new media. Post’s argument might have been more convincing, especially to skeptics who might challenge how a film’s website constitutes (electronic) literature, if he had discussed the signification of the animation of Marion and Harry lying in bed, for example. I know you have not read Hayles, so it is not fair for me to call her in now. She argues that we cannot apply literary criticism to new media texts because the latter is not strictly literature. Hayles is particularly critical of semiotics and new media texts since semiotics assume a one to one connection between signifier and signified. A letter typed on a computer is anything but a 1 to 1 correspondance since the binary code sitting underneath the letter appearing on the screen is a combination of many 0s and 1s.
In this particular example, the image of Marion and Harry only becomes fully visible after the user moves the cursor around the screen triggering the program to “unveil” or show specific areas of the image to users; however, this unveiling occurs after several moments in which the screen is completely blank and it seems as if the program has paused or locked up. In this case, the users’ actions propel the image to appear and the users become more immersed in the program; however, this visual immersion takes the users further into the program, much like the characters’ further spiral into addiction. Therefore, while the immersive experience is often considered pleasurable, as J. Yellowlees Douglas and Andrew Hargadon discuss in “The Pleasure of Immersion (good) and Interaction,” in this case, as users immerse into the site, they experience moments of paranoia, confusion, and inadequacy.
However, as the image appears to users on the screen, texts flash and move across the screen; for instance, “REQUIEM,” “DREAM,” and “800-650” appear, all of which are references to elements in the movie. In this case, the texts function linguistically to connect the experience of the site to the experience of the film. Likewise, the “eerie,” melodic music that accompanies this image further enhances the intended mood. Still, by examining the signifier as a visual and linguistic element, Post’s article convincingly illustrates how Flash, and new media in particular, present signifiers that are not simply linguistic elements. However, his article would be complete if it had the one final piece that is missing, a close visual, linguistic, musical reading of this new media source.
Works Cited (put this above your resources)
Douglas, J. Yellowlees and Andrew Hargadon. “The Pleasure of Immersion and Interaction.” First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004. 192-7.
Picot, Edward. “Upclose and Virtual.” trAce OnlineWritingCenter. 14 May 2004. 25 Oct 2005. <http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?article=107>
Post, Jack. “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Close Reading New Media: Analyzing Electronic Literature. Eds. Jan Van Looy and Jan Baetens. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven UP. 2003. 123-40.
Thinking about the word "requiem," I have two theories: One, the word was meant to connect the title of the website to the title of the movie. It was a pun, more or less.
Or, two, "requiem," as "A special mass said or sung for the repose of the souls of the dead" (OED), goes back to the experience the website was supposed to convey to readers. Specifically, just as I discussed in my post, the site was supposed to create a sense of immersion. But, instead of one that was pleasant or entertaining, the creators wanted users to feel more lost, fragmented, and paranoid as they immersed themselves in the site. I think in this case, the "requiem" or funeral durge is that of the readers. Their experience is not meant to exactly be pleasant; rather, the immersion into the site reflects the death of the reader. They continue to have less and less control in the site, the farther they get into it. It is the "death," so to speak, of control. Therefore, the requiem represents the metaphorical death of the reader.
Thinking more about Dr. G's comment regarding Katherine Hayles' theory that new media cannot be subjected to the same literary theory as literature because new media isn't literature, exactly. Theories regarding semiotics aren't necessarily applicable to new media studies because semiotics assumes a 1 to 1 ratio between the signifier and the signified. However, in new media, the 1 is represented on the screen by many 0's and 1's--there is no 1 really on a computer screen, just a series of commands that tells us the character on the screen should resemble a 1.
After reading Eco over the past two months, I wonder if semiotics and philosophies of language are changing so that such discussions might, in fact, apply to new media. Specifically, Eco argues that language, like a mirror, doesn't represent a 1 to 1 relationship either. I read Eco's discussion on the mirror of language as saying that the mirror is reflected onto itself. So, for example, when someone walks into a dressing room with mirrors on the front wall and mirrors on the back, the reflecting image is the one that never ends. It's the "image of the image," so to speak. Therefore, we see ourselves getting smaller and smaller in the images in the mirror, over and over again. Language, as a mirror, does the same thing. There never is a starting point and there never is a conclusion. The image goes on forever.
As this relates to electronic literature and semiotics, perhaps there really is no 1 to 1 relationship between the signifier and the signified. There never really was. Instead, what we see, what we think is a 1 to 1 relationship is really just two images reflected back on each other in this great strand of images reflecting each other in a mirror. So, if there is no constant, stable relationship between the signifier and the signified, if there never really was a 1 to 1 relationship to begin with, maybe semiotic theory can be applied to new media.
Therefore, if new media needs more close readings to gain more credibility among the humanities departments, maybe semiotic theory, literary theory, or whatever type of analysis one wants to do, could achieve those ends. I think that is what Van Looy and Baetens were really trying to do in their book.
Works Cited
Aronofsky, Darren and Florian Schmitt. Requiem for a Dream. website. 25 Oct 2005. http://www.requiemforadream.com/
Douglas, J. Yellowlees and Andrew Hargadon. “The Pleasure of Immersion and Interaction.” First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004. 192-7.
Eco, Umberto. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language . Bloomington : Indiana UP. 1984.
Picot, Edward. “Upclose and Virtual.” trAce OnlineWritingCenter. 14 May 2004. 25 Oct 2005. http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?article=107
Post, Jack. “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Close Reading New Media: Analyzing Electronic Literature. Eds. Jan Van Looy and Jan Baetens. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven UP. 2003. 123-40.
