Jacob Fendrich
English Final Project
As more and more electronic or mediated texts enter our sphere of literature, I see a decrease in interest for literature. Many of the critics I have been reading do not approve of these new text mediums, such as Sven Birkerts and Nicholas Carr, and see this decline as a cause for concern. I do not disagree with their apprehension, however I believe these mediated texts have the ability to enhance our reading experience and their incorrect usage is the reason for discrepancies in our perception of present day literature. We need to read the mediated literature we have been discussing to reveal more meaningful aspects of writing, as well as learning to distinguish what is not literature. Unlike Birkerts, I believe we need these electronic texts and multimedia books to broaden our view of literature and prevent it from being overshadowed by the growing power of the internet’s capacity. The fluidity and uniqueness of these pieces enhances our experience of literature, when viewed with caution.
What distinguishes literature from just another line of text is not entirely clear, however it seems to me the academic value and adherence to laws of syntax plays a large role in our perception of a text. One problem I have with Sven Birkerts’ idea of literature, and therefore rejection of mediated texts, is that it must be static. His idea of literature comes from a very dogmatic standpoint on the upholding of print standards. Birkerts claims, in The Gutenberg Elegies: “The order of print is linear, and is bound to logic by the imperatives of syntax. Syntax is the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language…Moreover, the printed material is static- it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (Birkerts, 122) With exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection I found mediated texts which move forward in front of the reader’s eyes, yet still can be considered literature. One of these, The Mandrake Vehicles, is an animated text which deals with the arrangement of words, and more specifically letters, and how it affects our perception of the content. The author, Oni Buchanan takes one poem, and in a seven step process removes letters, thus creating new words and poems from the letters extracted, as well as those remaining. My first impression to this piece was amazement, in how so much depth and literary meaning could be derived from what I perceived to be a single short poem. This piece defies Birkerts’ static views of print; he is essentially remapping our use of syntax to reveal more rhetoric than our eyes can process at one time, and doing it artistically. Each piece of this poem is static; the seven stages each consist of their own separate message and specific linear text pattern. It is only the animated transitions between these stages which mediates this text and therefore makes it unfit to be considered literature by Birkerts. He claims: “Contents, unless they are printed out (at which point they become part of the static order of print) are felt to be evanescent. They can be changed or deleted with the stroke of a key” (Birkerts, 122) It is logical to perceive each stage of the poem as a momentary pause in the animation scheme of the larger text; however it is a static work. This poem has been published in a legitimate online database and making changes to it would represent total mediation like reprinting a text with changes, trying to present the original work. The physical medium on which print exists does not affect its evanescence; the ability to more easily change electronic texts rather than printed is a cause of technological development, not a flaw in the medium. To me, the time and thought which went into developing seven short pieces of text from one larger, without totally disrupting the order of syntax, merits more literary praise than Birkerts’ book for example, which only allows the reader to perceive the linear text as the author intended.
It has occurred to me, that this static text which Birkerts describes could have its advantages. As our world turns more electronic, our work turns less concrete, and one’s blog post is only as accurate as its last revision or update. The medium of linear text printed on a page could be perceived as a safe haven from these quickly changing times; the ability for the reader to move through the book and derive meaning is not hindered by extra sensory features or the possibility of multiple perceptions of the same piece. While Birkerts’ view of standard literature can surely be safe, this view is still dogmatic and limits our exploration of new and exciting texts which can hold literary value too.
These electronic texts, besides from being new and exciting, are also incredibly more accessible to members of our society. The introduction of the internet and thus the ability to share information and texts seamlessly has brought about many changes; e-books, Wikipedia, Google, etc. I believe that when used properly, these new mediums of literature can provide us more than any printed text ever could. Birkerts argues the exact opposite, in saying that the media is feeding 50 million citizens a “basic package of edited information” which only reveals what the author intends. Is this not true with novels as well? The author is almost always subjective in his or her writing, and people are becoming misinformed because they are taking this new media’s information for granted, not because the medium or its author has a specific agenda. It would be impossible to provide a mass number of people with objective information, unedited or unrevised, through the means of electronic literature. However, the same is true for printed text; mediated literature seems to be under scrutiny because the transitions between different versions of a single text are visible and therefore the fluidity of the medium becomes a concern for discrepancies. I can see how some mediated texts can be viewed with scrutiny; in the same Electronic Literature Collection which has The Mandrake Vehicles, I read an electronic text which holds little literary value. This text is called The Last Performance by Judd Morrissey, and consists of a pattern of words which moves sporadically to make different patterns on the screen. While there might be some aesthetic value, the words are moving too quickly to even read. Like Birkerts, I am too am claiming a lack of static text which adheres to syntax laws; this electronic work is not literature. These types of quick-moving, animated texts are not the mediated literature which I have been praising. This text, to me, represented what I think Birkerts is afraid of. The incredible speed at which we are being fed bytes of information is overwhelming, and I do not disagree that texts such as these misrepresent valid literature in this new age. This exchange of mediums is not the cause for The Last Performance’s lack of literary value; it is the design and intent of the author which has made the piece more art than text.
While it appears to me that most of the issues Birkerts takes with electronic literature seem to apply to his own glorified concept of classic print literature, I do agree with his concern for the fate of mediated literature. Like I mentioned before, these new resources are useful if used wisely and can present very serious problems if the birth of now technology overshadows the death of our old ways. In Nicholas Carr’s article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? he discusses the issues with our new ability to recall any information we desire via electronic mediums. Any interesting point he makes, which I think Birkerts and I can both agree on, is that search engines like Google are making information too accessible and therefore reducing our need for contemplation and comprehension. There is no longer a need for me to remember the capital of Wisconsin, or the third king of England, because I can easily type it into Google and blindly accept their answer, forgetting it as quickly as a found it once no longer needed. This sort of information retrieval is not literature to me, and I believe that it is damaging our literary society. Text on the internet, just like text on a page, is not always correct. The issue with the internet however, is that it has become so easy to change a text or include a hyperlink to another source that our vision of what is true and what is opinion or just lies becomes blurry. Our acceptance of anything Google or Wikipedia can produce to answer our questions sheds a bad light on the rest of electronic and mediated texts. Nicholas Carr believes these new mediums are a distraction: “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” While this can generally be agreed upon for the internet, mediated and electronic texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles are not viewed in this way; their rhetoric and purpose can be examined and possibly rediscovered by the reader without the distractions of rapid-fire internet notifications. On the other side, this exact effect was seen with The Last Performance, which brings up that no electronic text is to be trusted. The whole view of electronic texts cannot be shaped by the commercial information bank which the internet has generally become, and by viewing these texts with the same caution and contemplation as we would read printed works, we will not fall into a trap of electronic illiteracy.
Refusing to read or accept these electronic or mediated texts as literature represents the same kind of dogmatic thinking which the Gutenberg press was met with. Our attempt to hold on to the glorified concept of classic literature is both decreasing interest in our literature, as well as discounting these new forms of text. Granted, many of these new electronic mediums can be distracting as well as a misinterpretation of what literature should be, however we should not spurn them all. There is both academic and conceptual value in mediated texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles and therefore they should be read, to expand our literary culture and appreciate texts which can move on their own.
Self Reflection
To revise my project on the values of mediated texts, I plan on focusing more on what can be considered a mediated text. I also plan to include examples of more electronic or mediated texts to strengthen my view that these texts can be of value. They should be read and written both for people expressing themselves creatively as well as readers having access to current and classic literature. I did not involve myself in a deep exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection, so I plan to go back and find more mediated/electronic texts to support my argument that they should be read. These pieces will have the rationale and syntax of printed text, however they expand upon the foundations of literature with hyperlinks and animated reading. I also will include some mediated texts which do not represent literature; so that the reader may understand how to view these new texts and uphold the concept of meaningful and tangible literature.
A large part of my argument focuses on the shortcomings of Birkerts’ argument which claims all text should be static. His strict adherence to the laws of syntax and linear print are attacked, however I do not use more of his viewpoints to attack. I used a straw man argument, in which Birkerts’ opinions were not totally revealed. I also did not give credit for some of his points which my argument tends to agree with. Using more of Birkerts’ quotes will both expand my use of his works and allow comparing and contrasting of our own opinions on the subject. I plan to counter my own attack on Birkerts, as well as formulate more critical analysis of his works to better support my own view. I have learned that taking one quote out of context can be misleading, and does not represent the author’s entire argument. This can be used to easily counter a view; however it does not make for a solid dispute to Birkerts’ overall view on the subject. The countering of my own views was learning from Harris and was used in the later parts of my paper, however I would like to go back through the beginning and check my arguments for limitations.
For the grammatical aspect of my paper, I intend to change my word choice with more appropriate or varied vocabulary to prevent using the same words over again. I have learned how to use wordle or another word counter to see which words I use too much or which ones are important, thus deserve more attention in my revision.
The most effective part of writing this paper was counter arguing myself. The critics I used had many good points, and although I was opposing many of their ideas, giving their concepts merit gives a well-rounded argument. The difficult part of this was ensuring that my counterargument would not overshadow my original argument and turn the paper into a flip flop.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Buchanan, Oni. “The Mandrake Vehicles.” Electronic Literature Collection. N.p., 2006. Web. <http://collection.eliterature.org/2/works/buchanan_mandrake/start.swf>.
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., July-Aug. 2008. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/>.
Morrissey, Judd. “The Last Performance.” The Last Performance. N.p., 2009. Web. <http://thelastperformance.org/title.php>.
As more and more electronic or mediated texts enter our sphere of literature, I see a decrease in interest for classic literature. Many of the critics I have been reading do not approve of these new text mediums, such as Sven Birkerts in The Gutenberg Elegies, and see this decline as a cause for concern. I do not disagree with their apprehension, however I believe these mediated texts have the ability to enhance our reading experience and their incorrect usage is the reason for discrepancies in our perception of present day literature. We need to read the mediated literature we have been discussing to reveal more meaningful aspects of writing, as well as learning to distinguish what is not literature. Unlike Birkerts, I believe we need these electronic texts and multimedia books to broaden our view of literature and prevent it from being lost. The fluidity and uniqueness of these pieces enhances our experience of literature, when viewed with caution.
What distinguishes literature from just another line of text is not entirely clear, however it seems to me the academic value and adherence to laws of syntax plays a large role in our perception of a text. The main problem I have with Sven Birkerts’ idea of literature, and therefore rejection of mediated texts, is that it must be static. His idea of literature comes from a very dogmatic standpoint on the upholding of print standards. Birkerts claims, in The Gutenberg Elegies: “The order of print is linear, and is bound to logic by the imperatives of syntax. Syntax is the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language…Moreover, the printed material is static- it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (Birkerts, 122) With exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection I found a mediated text which moves forward in front of the reader’s eyes, yet still can be considered literature; The Mandrake Vehicles. This animated text deals with the arrangement of words, and more specifically letters, and how it affects our perception of the content. The author, Oni Buchanan takes one poem, and in a seven step process removes letters, thus creating new words and poems from the letters extracted, as well as those remaining. My first impression to this piece was amazement, in how so much depth and literary meaning could be derived from what I perceived to be a single short poem. This piece defies Birkerts’ concept of literature; he is essentially remapping our use of syntax to reveal more rhetoric than our eyes can process at one time, and doing it artistically. Each piece of this poem is static; the seven stages each consist of their own separate message and specific linear text pattern. It is only the animated transitions between these stages which mediates this text and therefore makes it unfit to be considered literature by Birkerts. To me, the time and thought which went into developing seven short pieces of text from one larger, without totally disrupting the order of syntax, merits more literary praise than Birkerts’ book for example, which only allows the reader to perceive the linear text as the author intended.
It has occurred to me, that this static text which Birkerts describes could have its advantages. As our world turns more electronic, our work turns less concrete, and one’s blog post is only as accurate as its last revision or update. The medium of linear text printed on a page could be perceived as a safe haven from these quickly changing times; the ability for the reader to move through the book and derive meaning is not hindered by extra sensory features or the possibility of multiple perceptions of the same piece. While Birkerts’ view of standard literature can surely be safe, this view is still dogmatic and limits our exploration of new and exciting texts which can hold literary value too.
These electronic texts, besides from being new and exciting, are also incredibly more accessible to members of our society. The introduction of the internet and thus the ability to share information and texts seamlessly has brought about many changes; e-books, Wikipedia, Google, etc. I believe that when used properly, these new mediums of literature can provide us more than any printed text ever could. Birkerts argues the exact opposite, in saying that the media is feeding 50 million citizens a “basic package of edited information” which only reveals what the author intends. Is this not true with novels as well? The author is almost always subjective in his or her writing, and people are becoming misinformed because they are taking this new media’s information for granted, not because the medium or its author has a specific agenda. It would be impossible to provide a mass number of people with objective information, unedited or unrevised, through the means of electronic literature. However, the same is true for printed text; mediated literature seems to be under scrutiny because the transitions between different versions of a single text are visible and therefore the fluidity of the medium becomes a concern for discrepancies. When has editing ever been a cause for concern? The Gutenberg Elegies had an editor; in fact, I’m reading a version with a new introduction and afterword which were not included in the original text. The term mediated infers that there is an agent involved in some middle step of the writing or reading process, some medium, which is essentially transforming the perception of that text. The addition of the aforementioned segments to Birkerts’ book makes it a mediated text, and in contradiction to his own ideas, does not “exalt the words, fixing them into permanence” but rather shows how revision is used by most to refine the message. This method of rewriting, though not electronic, shows a subjective approach in which “the presentation structures the reception” and editing only represents a “means to an end”; phrases used by Birkerts to so vehemently describe print’s electronic counterpart.
While it appears to me that most of the issues Birkerts takes with electronic literature seem to apply to his own glorified concept of classic print literature, I do agree with his concern for the fate of mediated literature. Like I mentioned before, these new resources are useful if used wisely and can present very serious problems if the birth of now technology overshadows the death of our old ways. In Nicholas Carr’s article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? he discusses the issues with our new ability to recall any information we desire via electronic mediums. Any interesting point he makes, which I think Birkerts and I can both agree on, is that search engines like Google are making information too accessible and therefore reducing our need for contemplation and comprehension. There is no longer a need for me to remember the capital of Wisconsin, or the third king of England, because I can easily type it into Google and blindly accept there answer, forgetting it as quickly as a found it once no longer needed. This sort of information retrieval is not literature to me, and I believe that it is damaging our literary society. Text on the internet, just like text on a page, is not always correct. The issue with the internet however, is that it has become so easy to change a text or include a hyperlink to another source that our vision of what is true and what is opinion or just lies becomes blurry. For some reason, we have stopped viewing mediated texts with the same scrutiny we have viewed printed text for many years. Our acceptance of anything Google or Wikipedia can produce to answer our questions sheds a bad light on the rest of electronic and mediated texts. Nicholas Carr believes these new mediums are a distraction: “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” While this can generally be agreed upon for the internet, mediated and electronic texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles are not viewed in this way; their rhetoric and purpose can be examined and possibly rediscovered by the reader without the distractions of rapid-fire internet notifications. The whole view of electronic texts cannot be shaped by the commercial information bank which the internet has generally become, and by viewing these texts with the same caution and contemplation as we would read printed works, we will not fall into a trap of electronic illiteracy.
Refusing to read or accept these electronic or mediated texts as literature represents the same kind of dogmatic thinking which the Gutenberg press was met with. Our attempt to hold on to the glorified concept of classic literature is both decreasing interest in our literature, as well as discounting these new forms of text. Granted, many of these new electronic mediums can be distracting as well as a misinterpretation of what literature should be, however we should not spurn them all. There is both academic and conceptual value in mediated texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles and therefore they should be read, to expand our literary culture and appreciate texts which can move on their own.
The most effective part of writing this paper was counter arguing myself. The critics I used had many good points, and although I was opposing many of their ideas, giving their concepts merit gives a well-rounded argument. The difficult part of this was ensuring that my counterargument would not overshadow my original argument and turn the paper into a flip flop.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., July-Aug. 2008. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/>.
To revise my project on the values of mediated texts, I plan on focusing more on what can be considered a mediated text. I also plan to include examples of more electronic or mediated texts to strengthen my view that these texts can be of value. They should be read and written both for people expressing themselves creatively as well as readers having access to current and classic literature. I did not involve myself in a deep exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection, so I plan to go back and find more mediated/electronic texts to support my argument that they should be read. These pieces will have the rationale and syntax of printed text, however they expand upon the foundations of literature with hyperlinks and animated reading. I also will include some mediated texts which do not represent literature; so that the reader may understand how to view these new texts and uphold the concept of meaningful and tangible literature.
A large part of my argument focuses on the shortcomings of Birkerts’ argument which claims all text should be static. His strict adherence to the laws of syntax and linear print are attacked, however I do not use more of his viewpoints to attack. I used a straw man argument, in which Birkerts’ opinions were not totally revealed. I also did not give credit for some of his points which my argument tends to agree with. Using more of Birkerts’ quotes will both expand my use of his works and allow comparing and contrasting of our own opinions on the subject. I plan to counter my own attack on Birkerts, as well as formulate more critical analysis of his works to better support my own view. I have learned that taking one quote out of context can be misleading, and does not represent the author’s entire argument. This can be used to easily counter a view; however it does not make for a solid dispute to Birkerts’ overall view on the subject. The countering of my own views was learning from Harris and was used in the later parts of my paper, however I would like to go back through the beginning and check my arguments for limitations.
For the grammatical aspect of my paper, I intend to change my word choice with more appropriate or varied vocabulary to prevent using the same words over again. I have learned how to use wordle or another word counter to see which words I use too much or which ones are important, thus deserve more attention in my revision.
The most effective part of writing this paper was counter arguing myself. The critics I used had many good points, and although I was opposing many of their ideas, giving their concepts merit gives a well-rounded argument. The difficult part of this was ensuring that my counterargument would not overshadow my original argument and turn the paper into a flip flop.
To revise my project on the values of mediated texts, I plan on focusing more on what can be considered a mediated text. I also plan to include examples of more electronic or mediated texts to strengthen my view that these texts can be of value. They should be read and written both for people expressing themselves creatively as well as readers having access to current and classic literature. I did not involve myself in a deep exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection, so I plan to go back and find more mediated/electronic texts to support my argument that they should be read. These pieces will have the rationale and syntax of printed text, however they expand upon the foundations of literature with hyperlinks and animated reading. I also will include some mediated texts which do not represent literature; so that the reader may understand how to view these new texts and uphold the concept of meaningful and tangible literature.
A large part of my argument focuses on the shortcomings of Birkerts’ argument which claims all text should be static. His strict adherence to the laws of syntax and linear print are attacked, however I do not use more of his viewpoints to attack. I plan to counter my own attack on Birkerts, as well as formulate more critical analysis of his works to better support my own view. I have learned that taking one quote out of context can be misleading, and does not represent the author’s entire argument. This can be used to easily counter a view; however it does not make for a solid dispute to Birkerts’ overall view on the subject. The countering of my own views was learning from Harris and was used in the later parts of my paper, however I would like to go back through the beginning and check my arguments for limitations.
For the grammatical aspect of my paper, I intend to change my word choice with more appropriate or varied vocabulary to prevent using the same words over again. I have learned how to use wordle or another word counter to see which words I use too much or which ones are important, thus deserve more attention in my revision.
As more and more electronic or mediated texts enter our sphere of literature, I see a decrease in interest for classic literature. Many of the critics I have been reading do not approve of these new text mediums, such as Sven Birkerts in The Gutenberg Elegies, and see this decline as a cause for concern. I do not disagree with their apprehension, however I believe these mediated texts have the ability to enhance our reading experience and their incorrect usage is the reason for discrepancies in our perception of present day literature. We need to read the mediated literature we have been discussing to reveal more meaningful aspects of writing, as well as learning to distinguish what is not literature. Unlike Birkerts, I believe we need these electronic texts and multimedia books to broaden our view of literature and prevent it from being lost. The fluidity and uniqueness of these pieces enhances our experience of literature, when viewed with caution.
What distinguishes literature from just another line of text is not entirely clear, however it seems to me the academic value and adherence to laws of syntax plays a large role in our perception of a text. The main problem I have with Sven Birkerts’ idea of literature, and therefore rejection of mediated texts, is that it must be static. His idea of literature comes from a very dogmatic standpoint on the upholding of print standards. Birkerts claims, in The Gutenberg Elegies: “The order of print is linear, and is bound to logic by the imperatives of syntax. Syntax is the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language…Moreover, the printed material is static- it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (Birkerts, 122) With exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection I found a mediated text which moves forward in front of the reader’s eyes, yet still can be considered literature; The Mandrake Vehicles. This animated text deals with the arrangement of words, and more specifically letters, and how it affects our perception of the content. The author, Oni Buchanan takes one poem, and in a seven step process removes letters, thus creating new words and poems from the letters extracted, as well as those remaining. My first impression to this piece was amazement, in how so much depth and literary meaning could be derived from what I perceived to be a single short poem. This piece defies Birkerts’ concept of literature; he is essentially remapping our use of syntax to reveal more rhetoric than our eyes can process at one time, and doing it artistically. Each piece of this poem is static; the seven stages each consist of their own separate message and specific linear text pattern. It is only the animated transitions between these stages which mediates this text and therefore makes it unfit to be considered literature by Birkerts. To me, the time and thought which went into developing seven short pieces of text from one larger, without totally disrupting the order of syntax, merits more literary praise than Birkerts’ book for example, which only allows the reader to perceive the linear text as the author intended.
It has occurred to me, that this static text which Birkerts describes could have its advantages. As our world turns more electronic, our work turns less concrete, and one’s blog post is only as accurate as its last revision or update. The medium of linear text printed on a page could be perceived as a safe haven from these quickly changing times; the ability for the reader to move through the book and derive meaning is not hindered by extra sensory features or the possibility of multiple perceptions of the same piece. While Birkerts’ view of standard literature can surely be safe, this view is still dogmatic and limits our exploration of new and exciting texts which can hold literary value too.
These electronic texts, besides from being new and exciting, are also incredibly more accessible to members of our society. The introduction of the internet and thus the ability to share information and texts seamlessly has brought about many changes; e-books, Wikipedia, Google, etc. I believe that when used properly, these new mediums of literature can provide us more than any printed text ever could. Birkerts argues the exact opposite, in saying that the media is feeding 50 million citizens a “basic package of edited information” which only reveals what the author intends. Is this not true with novels as well? The author is almost always subjective in his or her writing, and people are becoming misinformed because they are taking this new media’s information for granted, not because the medium or its author has a specific agenda. It would be impossible to provide a mass number of people with objective information, unedited or unrevised, through the means of electronic literature. However, the same is true for printed text; mediated literature seems to be under scrutiny because the transitions between different versions of a single text are visible and therefore the fluidity of the medium becomes a concern for discrepancies. When has editing ever been a cause for concern? The Gutenberg Elegies had an editor; in fact, I’m reading a version with a new introduction and afterword which were not included in the original text. The term mediated infers that there is an agent involved in some middle step of the writing or reading process, some medium, which is essentially transforming the perception of that text. The addition of the aforementioned segments to Birkerts’ book makes it a mediated text, and in contradiction to his own ideas, does not “exalt the words, fixing them into permanence” but rather shows how revision is used by most to refine the message. This method of rewriting, though not electronic, shows a subjective approach in which “the presentation structures the reception” and editing only represents a “means to an end”; phrases used by Birkerts to so vehemently describe print’s electronic counterpart.
While it appears to me that most of the issues Birkerts takes with electronic literature seem to apply to his own glorified concept of classic print literature, I do agree with his concern for the fate of mediated literature. Like I mentioned before, these new resources are useful if used wisely and can present very serious problems if the birth of now technology overshadows the death of our old ways. In Nicholas Carr’s article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? he discusses the issues with our new ability to recall any information we desire via electronic mediums. Any interesting point he makes, which I think Birkerts and I can both agree on, is that search engines like Google are making information too accessible and therefore reducing our need for contemplation and comprehension. There is no longer a need for me to remember the capital of Wisconsin, or the third king of England, because I can easily type it into Google and blindly accept there answer, forgetting it as quickly as a found it once no longer needed. This sort of information retrieval is not literature to me, and I believe that it is damaging our literary society. Text on the internet, just like text on a page, is not always correct. The issue with the internet however, is that it has become so easy to change a text or include a hyperlink to another source that our vision of what is true and what is opinion or just lies becomes blurry. For some reason, we have stopped viewing mediated texts with the same scrutiny we have viewed printed text for many years. Our acceptance of anything Google or Wikipedia can produce to answer our questions sheds a bad light on the rest of electronic and mediated texts. Nicholas Carr believes these new mediums are a distraction: “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” While this can generally be agreed upon for the internet, mediated and electronic texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles are not viewed in this way; their rhetoric and purpose can be examined and possibly rediscovered by the reader without the distractions of rapid-fire internet notifications. The whole view of electronic texts cannot be shaped by the commercial information bank which the internet has generally become, and by viewing these texts with the same caution and contemplation as we would read printed works, we will not fall into a trap of electronic illiteracy.
Refusing to read or accept these electronic or mediated texts as literature represents the same kind of dogmatic thinking which the Gutenberg press was met with. Our attempt to hold on to the glorified concept of classic literature is both decreasing interest in our literature, as well as discounting these new forms of text. Granted, many of these new electronic mediums can be distracting as well as a misinterpretation of what literature should be, however we should not spurn them all. There is both academic and conceptual value in mediated texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles and therefore they should be read, to expand our literary culture and appreciate texts which can move on their own.
The most effective part of writing this paper was counter arguing myself. The critics I used had many good points, and although I was opposing many of their ideas, giving their concepts merit gives a well-rounded argument. The difficult part of this was ensuring that my counterargument would not overshadow my original argument and turn the paper into a flip flop.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., July-Aug. 2008. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/>.
As more and more electronic or mediated texts enter our sphere of literature, I see a decrease in interest for classic literature. Many of the critics I have been reading do not approve of these new text mediums, such as Sven Birkerts in The Gutenberg Elegies, and see this decline as a cause for concern. I do not disagree with their apprehension, however I believe these mediated texts have the ability to enhance our reading experience and their incorrect usage is the reason for discrepancies in our perception of present day literature. We need to read the mediated literature we have been discussing to reveal more meaningful aspects of writing, as well as learning to distinguish what is not literature. Unlike Birkerts, I believe we need these electronic texts and multimedia books to broaden our view of literature and prevent it from being lost. The fluidity and uniqueness of these pieces enhances our experience of literature, when viewed with caution.
What distinguishes literature from just another line of text is not entirely clear, however it seems to me the academic value and adherence to laws of syntax plays a large role in our perception of a text. The main problem I have with Sven Birkerts’ idea of literature, and therefore rejection of mediated texts, is that it must be static. His idea of literature comes from a very dogmatic standpoint on the upholding of print standards. He claims, in The Gutenberg Elegies: “The order of print is linear, and is bound to logic by the imperatives of syntax. Syntax is the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language…Moreover, the printed material is static- it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (Birkerts, 122) With exploration of the Electronic Literature Collection I found a mediated text which moves forward in front of the reader’s eyes, yet still can be considered literature; The Mandrake Vehicles. This animated text deals with the arrangement of words, and more specifically letters, and how it affects our perception of the content. The author, Oni Buchanan takes one poem, and in a seven step process removes letters, thus creating new words and poems from the letters extracted, as well as those remaining. My first impression to this piece was amazement, in how so much depth and literary meaning could be derived from what I perceived to be a single short poem. This piece defies Birkerts’ concept of literature; he is essentially remapping our use of syntax to reveal more rhetoric than our eyes can process at one time, and doing it artistically. Each piece of this poem is static; the seven stages each consist of their own separate message and specific linear text pattern. It is only the animated transitions between these stages which mediates this text and therefore makes it unfit to be considered literature by Birkerts. To me, the time and thought which went into developing seven short pieces of text from one larger, without totally disrupting the order of syntax, merits more literary praise than Birkerts’ book for example, which only allows the reader to perceive the linear text as the author intended.
It has occurred to me, that this static text which Birkerts describes could have its advantages. As our world turns more electronic, our work turns less concrete, and one’s blog post is only as accurate as its last revision or update. The medium of linear text printed on a page could be perceived as a safe haven from these quickly changing times; the ability for the reader to move through the book and derive meaning is not hindered by extra sensory features or the possibility of multiple perceptions of the same piece. While Birkerts’ view of standard literature can surely be safe, this view is still dogmatic and limits our exploration of new and exciting texts which can hold literary value too.
These electronic texts, besides from being new and exciting, are also incredibly more accessible to members of our society. The introduction of the internet and thus the ability to share information and texts seamlessly has brought about many changes; e-books, Wikipedia, Google, etc. I believe that when used properly, these new mediums of literature can provide us more than any printed text ever could. Birkerts argues the exact opposite, in saying that the media is feeding 50 million citizens a “basic package of edited information” which only reveals what the author intends. Is this not true with novels as well? The author is almost always subjective in his or her writing, and people are becoming misinformed because they are taking this new media’s information for granted, not because the medium or its author has a specific agenda. It would be impossible to provide a mass number of people with objective information, unedited or unrevised, through the means of electronic literature. However, the same is true for printed text; mediated literature seems to be under scrutiny because the transitions between different versions of a single text are visible and therefore the fluidity of the medium becomes a concern for discrepancies. When has editing ever been a cause for concern? The Gutenberg Elegies had an editor; in fact, I’m reading a version with a new introduction and afterword which were not included in the original text. The term mediated infers that there is an agent involved in some middle step of the writing or reading process, some medium, which is essentially transforming the perception of that text. The addition of the aforementioned segments to Birkerts’ book makes it a mediated text, and in contradiction to his own ideas, does not “exalt the words, fixing them into permanence” but rather shows how revision is used by most to refine the message. This method of rewriting, though not electronic, shows a subjective approach in which “the presentation structures the reception” and editing only represents a “means to an end”; phrases used by Birkerts to so vehemently describe print’s electronic counterpart.
While it appears to me that most of the issues Birkerts takes with electronic literature seem to apply to his own glorified concept of classic print literature, I do agree with his concern for the fate of mediated literature. Like I mentioned before, these new resources are useful if used wisely and can present very serious problems if the birth of now technology overshadows the death of our old ways. In Nicholas Carr’s article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? he discusses the issues with our new ability to recall any information we desire via electronic mediums. Any interesting point he makes, which I think Birkerts and I can both agree on, is that search engines like Google are making information too accessible and therefore reducing our need for contemplation and comprehension. There is no longer a need for me to remember the capital of Wisconsin, or the third king of England, because I can easily type it into Google and blindly accept there answer, forgetting it as quickly as a found it once no longer needed. This sort of information retrieval is not literature to me, and I believe that it is damaging our literary society. Text on the internet, just like text on a page, is not always correct. The issue with the internet however, is that it has become so easy to change a text or include a hyperlink to another source that our vision of what is true and what is opinion or just lies becomes blurry. For some reason, we have stopped viewing mediated texts with the same scrutiny we have viewed printed text for many years. Our acceptance of anything Google or Wikipedia can produce to answer our questions sheds a bad light on the rest of electronic and mediated texts. Nicholas Carr believes these new mediums are a distraction: “When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” While this can generally be agreed upon for the internet, mediated and electronic texts such as The Mandrake Vehicles are not viewed in this way; their rhetoric and purpose can be examined and possibly rediscovered by the reader without the distractions of rapid-fire internet notifications. The whole view of electronic texts cannot be shaped by the commercial information bank which the internet has generally become, and viewing these texts with the same caution and contemplation as we would read printed works, we will not fall into a trap of electronic illiteracy.
We need to read the mediated literature we have been discussing to reveal more meaningful aspects of writing, as well as learning to distinguish what is not literature. Unlike Birkerts, I believe we need to read these electronic texts and multimedia books to broaden our view of literature and prevent it from being lost. The fluidity and uniqueness of these pieces enhances our experience of literature, when viewed with caution.
- The Set Up
-More and more electronic or mediated texts are entering our sphere of literature.
-Sven Birkerts believes these pieces of literature are of no academic value and are corrupting our society’s concept of literature.
-I believe this literature can be used academically and brings more fluidity and meaning to our linear text. Birkerts has a dogmatic view of literature which can be just as harmful as the influx of electronic texts into our society.
- Problems
-I argue that mediated literature can reach more people, making literature more accessible to more people. This would increase interest in literature as well as promote significant texts to a larger audience.
-Birkerts argues that the media if feeding 50 million citizens a “basic package of edited information”, and essentially corrupting us with literature that has an agenda.
-I argue that these mediated texts are true to the laws of syntax which our novels and scripts abide by. The medium can transform the presentation of the text, however we are reading it different with our new electronic mediums. Our morbid symptoms are occurring when we forget that these mediated texts are not the same as our old.
-Birkerts and McLuhan believe that the medium is what is corrupting our literature. The multitude of media on which our text can take place is unnecessary, and is essentially fostering the death of our old system.
-I believe the responsibility of handling these new texts falls on the reader, and the ability to access limitless information should not be taken for granted, as a perfect tool of literature. Like Carr, I believe the instant recall of information via mediated text is dangerous, and the reader should beware.
-The introduction of mediated literature has not been met with responsibility, as seen by the enormous use of Google and Wikipedia in our society. False literature is becoming more prevalent, and the increase of mediums on which it can exist only worsens the problem.
3. Climax
-The electronic literature such as “The Mandrake Vehicles” we have been exploring are of literary value, however displayed. This is not to say all mediated literature is good, however if it uses syntax properly, the fluid or linear nature of its medium should not deter the reader from perceiving and making critical judgment. Thinking critically of media can dispel McLuhan’s idea that our message is lost in the translation of classic literature to electronic forms. Birkerts’ belief that these pieces are not literature, nor valuable has some merit, however I believe the perception of the text is changing not the text itself. With careful reading and appreciation of many forms of literature one can use electronic texts and mediated literature to their advantage.
While exploring the electronic literature collection, I noticed that many of the works put emphasis on the not so concrete arrangement of letters which constitute our literature. The linear nature of writing and reading does not apply to these works; and they use this alteration of our literary standards to emphasize their view. A very creative use of this, which I saw was “The Mandrake Vehicles” by Oni Buchanan. This animated text deals with the arrangement of words, and more specifically letters, and how it affects our perception of the content. The author takes one poem, and in a seven step process removes letters, thus creating new words and poems from the letters extracted, as well as those remaining. It is a very interesting concept, and a form of literature which critics we have formerly discussed would resent, such as Sven Birkerts.
The idea that this poem is a “liquid” piece as described by its author would not resonate well with Sven Birkerts, who believes literature is concrete, unmoving. His idea of literature comes from a very dogmatic standpoint on the upholding of print standards. He claims, in The Gutenberg Elegies: “The order of print is linear, and is bound to logic by the imperatives of syntax. Syntax is the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language…Moreover, the printed material is static- it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (Birkerts, 122) Buchanan’s piece completely defies Birkerts’ concept of print, and this is enabled by a computer screen. While Birkerts would confer that this is not literature because it is not static; the different stages of the poem can be chosen at will, even the transitions are visible. I believe this is a fantastic way to look at literature; all this time we have been moving through the book, but now it is moving before our eyes. I could argue with Birkerts about the static nature of this poem however, because each seven of the stages of this work can be considered original pieces. The fact that these poems fit into each other makes it all the more artistic, and because one is witnessing a multitude of texts in a short amount of time does not mean each work is not its own static print. I believe the author is not intending to defy the linear nature of print, as Birkerts would assume, but rather he is revealing the depth and variation of content of language can carry, however linear, without being noticed. Buchanan describes this idea in his description of the poems: “These inner poems have technically been visible all along in the top layer, but remain undetected because of the presence of the other letters and characters.” Now the nature of how we view the text is being confronted, and the reader sees almost endless possibilities in one small chunk of static text. This poem is much like a hyperlink in itself, but the different layers are not to be resented for their misinterpretation of linear print, rather appreciated for their creative use of syntax in multiple static works to create an overall fluid picture which does in fact represent linear print. The fluidity of these poems lies in our perception of the print, not the arrangement of the text.
The medium in which we place our language has a deep effect on how we perceive the language. Many of the writers who we have been examining in class seem to have a problem with the increase in mediums recently. It appears that what once used to be confined to printed books is now accessible in many more forms; radio, television, even the computer. While many of the aforementioned authors took issue with this change, claiming it is ruing the authenticity and value of our literature, I believe it is enhancing the reading experience. The most recent article we read, by Janet Murray, to a degree emulates my feelings on this subject. As a former IBM programmer she sheds some much needed light on the literacy of computers.
Murray describes her first introduction into the world of literature as one of passion and revelation. Like myself, she found deep satisfaction in the great stories and ideas of deceased authors; even the critical analysis of their works. She claims however, “Yet the more I read, the clearer it became that stories did not tell the whole truth about the world. As I researched the lives of women in the Victorian era, I (like others of my generation) was struck by the fact that much of what I was learning had been left out of the great novels of the era.” (Murray, 4) The absence of this information which she finds so vital is my exact reasoning for the broadening of literary mediums. With only classic texts to go off of, one quickly becomes restrained by the author’s view and whatever information they chose to include in their story, whether fictional or not. While McLuhan claims that “all media work us over”, here it seems to me that more likely media assists our search for truth, when used correctly. If it had been left up to the likes of Sven Birkerts, Murray probably would have never known the Victorian woman’s plight because the research required does not exist in many a classic novel or old literature as she observed. The use of our new mediums, more specifically the computer, allowed for this accessibility to knowledge and I see very few detrimental effects attached to this process. Our need to share and update information is perfectly complimented by the computer and its networking, not hindered by it. Murray’s discovery of information not contained in the classic fiction she had been reading is proof of this, but I am not saying the computer is the most useful or important medium. A phrase which Murray uses and which I feel directly correlates to the need for multiple mediums of literature is cross-reference. Not one book, not one source should be accepted as the holder of truth or reasoned ideas, but rather multiple sources like the television, radio, or computer should be combined with literature to achieve a well-rounded and informed view. The reliance on one type of media can be harmful albeit, as Nicholas Carr shows in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
The use of one medium, for instance Google, limits our brain to a very secular search of knowledge. Like the classic fiction which Murray found misleading, if we continue to only use our new and much easier mediums (Google) we may forget how to use any other form of language to benefit us. When every question you’ve ever had can be answered by a search engine, the need to read books or investigate scholarly articles becomes miniscule in the eyes of the internet-surfer. There are problems with this, as Dennis Baron points out, because anyone can put an article on the internet and have it appear in a Google search. I agree with Baron’s view that not everyone should be writing; there is too much junk on the internet already and using Google can lead to false information. Google does not make us stupid with other mediums, only by itself and the true test of a medium’s worth lies not in its content but the ability for the reader to use it, not as a bible of knowledge but rather a cross-reference for any of the many other mediums which we have developed.
The many texts we have been examining in class take issue with the developments in literary technology. This idea that the advancement and broadening of literature is destroying its authenticity and therefore value has come across frequently, as seen in Sven Birkerts’s Gutenberg Elegies and Marshal McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage. McLuhan makes an argument against these new advancements, claiming they are ruining not only our literature but the standards of authorship and reading.
McLuhan decides to point his argument towards the printing press in one segment, proclaiming its debauchery: “The invention of printing did away with anonymity, fostering ideas of literary fame and the habit of considering intellectual effort as private property.” (McLuhan, 122) He appears to have distaste for the mechanical reproduction of works for the reason that they make reading much more public, therefore not specialized or exclusive. He opposes this technological replication because it is detrimental to authorship, but how am I now reading his own words? Is it not the printing press which made these ideas which he so earnestly wants to share accessible to me and many others? The technology we have created has not been for pleasure or amusement, rather for our increasing demands as the world of literature expands. Printing, what McLuhan refers to as a “ditto device” is its own art; a specific process which makes a more palatable visual medium for our language while also making our literature highly accessible. How we are using our new myriad of mediums for language is what I believe McLuhan should take issue with, not the mediums themselves. The notion that someone could Xerox this work and claim it as their own is valid; however it is obvious by the prominent business of publishing and selling books that our society has not succumbed to this literary dishonesty. In my eyes, McLuhan is mistaking the cause of literature’s decline for the technology which is transforming it, when it really it appears to be the people involved who are corrupting this process. Along with the printing press, McLuhan seems to resent television as a faulty medium for our language.
The television has represented a great advancement in our society; allowing stories and emotions to be conveyed to both the eye and the ear, as they appear in real life. McLuhan claims the new generation of television viewers is now a “grim bunch” and “much more serious” than previous generations. I believe his view is tainted by his frame of view; he has only experienced the beginning of television and has not yet been introduced to the whimsical side. At this point real world information, current events, is only being conveyed (his example is JFK’s funeral) and I can see how this would appear as dreary. He is thinking of television like a book, and he has only ever read non-fiction whereas now we have a wide variety of both entertaining and educational programs. He does acknowledge the need for a different set of sensory responses with television as compared to written language, however I feel as if his expectations for the two are too similar.
With closer investigation into the ideas of McLuhan I have found many similarities with my own, although I am not entirely convinced of his viewpoint. At one point McLuhan introduces a quote from Socrates, which claims the introduction of written alphabet will destroy the importance of holding personal knowledge because one can always go back and read the external medium on which the information is written without having to learn anything. I agree highly with this, now more than ever we can see the ability to “Google” something, find any information you want momentarily, has greatly reduced the need to learn and obtain knowledge. Our society has blindly accepted any written or oral language, coming from the television or computer, and has forgotten how to research and learn for yourself so that you might not have to rely on external sources. McLuhan has a right to scrutinize these mediums of language, but maybe there is a way to use them without totally relying on their information to obtain your own knowledge.
jacobfendrich 