Portfolio

Self-Reflection

In my final project, I have combined two of my previous writing projects, my first autobiographical piece and my most recent piece about Digital Wreading.  For the final project I wanted to elaborate on the last essay because it was my strongest piece throughout the whole semester.  In this last piece I basically focused on the legitimacy of electronic text in present day society using examples from both Sven Birkerts in opposition to electronic text and Katharine Hayles as an advocate for electronic text.  I argued that the electronic text that I was focusing on, Storyland, was legitimate.  I used counter argument from Birkerts’ book to essentially point out how he contradicts himself throughout his autobiographical section.

In order to elaborate on this piece, I ultimately changed the focus of the essay.  Instead of focusing on the legitimacy of strictly the one electronic text that I was examining, I decided to look at the problem of electronic text as a whole being something that is not yet considered legitimate.  In order to do this, I changed the introduction around a bit, removing the presentation of Storyland from the immediate introduction to the second paragraph.  By doing this I feel that the emphasis was taken off of that particular text and shifted to emphasis on the whole idea of electronic text.  Likewise, in the conclusion, I added additional information, which indicated the modifications.  In addition to shifting the focus, I decided to bring in my own opinion and my own biographical experiences.  This is where my first essay comes into play.  I was able to work certain parts of my first essay, where I express my initial views on technology, into my fourth essay. I believe that by bringing in my own experiences and opinion, the reader will be able to relate to and understand my point much more efficiently.  Also, in the final project, I decided that a more clear and developed counter argument would really bring out my main point and further devalue Birkerts’ views regarding the illegitimacy of electronic text.  To do this, I also incorporated additional quotes from my first essay, which happened to fit nicely into the argument.  Similarly, I had to reorganize the original structure of the fourth essay in order to add additional information where necessary in the new piece.

By making these modifications and integrating parts of my first essay, I intend to make my final essay much more elaborate and broad instead of just simply focusing on one specific piece.  Also, by adding my own biographical information and opinion, I hope to better convey to the reader where I am coming from.  I feel that the finished product is something that I am extremely proud of and I personally believe that my writing has progressed over the semester.  I have been able to work on my organization and my use of counterargument.  It was in this last piece where I really understood how important counterargument could be in conveying the main idea of an essay.  Finally, I feel that I have majorly improved in the editing stage of my writing.  Instead of simply writing out a draft and essentially not looking at it again before handing it in, I have learned to really go back and work through my drafts to improve and strengthen all aspects of my essays.  Even though I know that I still need some more improvement in these areas, overall, I really feel that I my writing has greatly improved over the course of the semester.

Essay #1:  The Transformation of Reading and Writing

In Sven Birkerts’ collection of essays, The Glutenberg Elegies, he argues that reading and writing have become two mediums, which have lost their place in the present, modern technological society.  In my experience, similarly I have found that in this changing society there has been a definite shift in the importance of reading and writing in the modern day. As a kid growing up in the 90’s, technology and the onset of new technology has always been part of my life.  I can just barely remember the early days of the Internet where surfing the web would tie up the phone lines, as dial-up was the only way to connect to cyberspace.  In consequence, since an early age, the media, whether it was the television or computer, were my main sources of information.  Although I did read as a child, and all the way through my school years, acquisition of information through the media became the easiest way to stay in touch with the world.  It is for this reason that I believe the importance of reading and writing has undoubtedly faded over the past 20 years.

Throughout his book, Sven Birkerts asserts his opinion on the recent drastic changes in society regarding how people acquire their information.  He explains how back in the days before the technology of the phone, television, computer, Internet and even books the main method of the dispersal of information was by word of mouth.  He goes on to explain further that word of mouth soon was recorded on paper and eventually was mass produced and printed and made available to those that could afford this luxury.  Before this time, where books were few and far between due to the labor involved in hand recording information, men read “only a few books- the Bible, an almanac, a devotional work or two […]” (Birkerts, pg.71).  By the 1800’s after the invention of the printing press, Birkerts explains, “men were reading “extensively.” They read all kinds of material, especially periodicals and newspapers” (Birkerts, pg. 71).  He gives these examples of the drastic change the invention of a printing machine produced in order to convey his belief that the same drastic change is occurring once again.  It is his observation, with which I firmly agree, that the same cultural change taking place in the modern day as the presence of the media in people’s everyday lives becomes harder and harder to escape.

In one section of his book, Birkerts recalls his experience teaching a college class on American literature.  He explains how he picked books for them to read which he “thought would appeal to the tastes of the average undergraduate and felt relatively confident” (Birkerts, pg. 17) about it.  He found however, as the students read through the books, which he, himself, thought were great, the students found “the story over-long, verbose, and a chore” (Birkerts, pg. 17).  Thinking that it may just have been the book he selected, he received the same type of response to one of his similar selections.  Most students could not pinpoint their disinterest.  It was not that they couldn’t understand the language or the vocabulary; it was more due to the fact that the books were old.  The students had trouble reading the story because it wasn’t about something relative to the here and now.  The stories were too antiquated for the young generation to understand.  Having had this experience myself, I completely understand why reading such books was so arduous for the students.  Throughout middle school and high school reading for school became much more of a chore than reading the latest Harry Potter book or Twilight book.  Throughout school, teachers always chose the classics to read, a few of my least favorites being The Awakening, Jane Eyre, Emma, and Great Expectations.  Reading these books because of their antiquity and because they seemed so far-removed from my modern life, became very unpleasant.  It is in this way that I can relate to how Birkerts’ undergraduate students may have been feeling in this class.  It was not the language of the books or the vocabulary that caused my dislike; it was simply that I was disinterested in the “old times.” With all information being thrown at us from a computer or television screen, who wants to take the time anymore to read and book and contemplate how its meaning could relate to life?  I firmly believe that the exposure of our generation to technology and the media has caused this disconnect with the past.

In the same way, writing had become much of a chore for me throughout middle school and high school.  Whenever there was the slight chance that I would enjoy the certain books that teachers chose for projects and class writing assignments, I experienced much of the same feeling Birkerts experienced as a college student.  He explains that during his time in college, a time where he was so obsessed with reading, he says that “the classroom setting did not kindle my imagination; if a book was on a syllabus, I lost interest” (Birkerts, pg.49).  In a similar way, I felt the same about most books I read in school and then was instructed to write extensively about.  For me, being forced to follow strict guidelines while writing about a book that I may have had a slight interest in, both exterminated my interest in the book and also my interest in writing about it.  Despite losing interest, I would always go through the motions and adhere to the task that was assigned, more out of the necessity to do well than anything else.  It was experiences like these throughout my school career, which totally took the fun out of writing for me.  Once again I believe that this rebellious attitude of mine relates to the fact that I have grown up in such a technological age where writing and other forms of expression have become so easily shared, whether over the internet or on the television.  This sense of freedom which I experience everyday through various forms of media has caused the youth of my generation to wonder about the necessity of adhering to guidelines.  I believe that this is the way in which most youths have come to resent conformity imposed by teachers and other authority figures.  Students have become confused between what they experience through the media and what they are asked to do in the classroom.   Therefore, like Birkerts explains in his book, it seems that the media has caused a definite shift in the way writing is viewed by the youth our generation.

Undeniably, through the example of both Birkerts’ experiences and my own experiences, it has become clear to me that there has been a distinct change in the emphasis of reading and writing in the modern day.  With the increased use of the media as a main source of information, it seems that many people are, in the present day, more likely to search the Internet for the latest news or gossip than to pick up the morning newspaper or the latest magazine.  It is clear that this disconnect, which is irrefutably attributed to the sudden plunge into an almost purely technological era, is greatly affecting the way in which students view and experience reading and writing.

Essay #4: Is Electronic Text Legitimate?

With the onset of the technological age, certain new technologies are beginning to replace everyday items, which may have been part of everyday life in the past.  Most of these new technologies are viewed as positive additions to households and businesses, designed to make life more efficient and easy for the average person.  This arrival of new ideas and inventions includes the introduction of electronic texts into society, a concept that many are still trying to understand.  Many believe that electronic texts can never be as legitimate as classical literature.  Upon first inspection of an electronic text called Storyland, one may wonder if this unconventional bundle of text can be considered legitimate.  After reading through Storyland, I believe that simply the content alone of electronic texts allow them to be viewed as serious pieces of literature displayed on a different medium.

Storyland is a text written by Nanette Wylde.  It displays short fragmented stories, broken up by sentences appearing one by one.  Before any of the text appears, an animated heading can be observed.  Flashing colorful letters flicker in and out and finally become stationary as a circus or carnival calliope audio plays in the background.  Once the story has completely appeared, and the reader has had a chance to read it, a simple click on the “new story” button in the bottom right corner causes the calliope music to start once again and a new and completely different story to appear.  Undoubtedly it can be seen through this description that reading through this series of stories is not what most people consider the traditional way of reading.  With the flashing letters and sequential appearance of text, reading through this electronic text becomes an experience in itself.

Although it becomes apparent that reading Storyland is much different than reading any traditional printed novel, neither of these pieces should be discounted as being legitimate.  Just as the printed book was the new and outlandish technology back in the days of the first printing press, electronic texts like Storyland are taking on the role of being the new and improved piece of literature that may seem very strange upon its first arrival.  In her book Writing Machines, Katherine Hayles talks about the present day boundaries between printed books and electronic texts, undoubtedly the same boundaries that were crossed when the first printed book made its debut.  She says as a supporter of the transition to electronic text that, “electronic textuality was here to stay as more print books were reconstructed for the Web, from medieval manuscripts, to illustrated works like William Blake’s books, to multimedia sites devoted to such master texts as Joyce’s Ulysses” (Hayles, pg. 45).  It can clearly be seen in many ways that these electronic texts are simply an extension of literary work onto a different and more accessible medium.  Nanette Wylde should be considered just as much of an author as another other classical writer.  Where such literature is accessed should not determine its legitimacy.  It is for this reason that such pieces like Storyland have every right to be considered legitimate literary works.

Although it seems clear that just as much literary effort is put into electronic texts as traditional texts, there are still many who question the legitimacy of these new texts that can only be viewed on some type of screen.  Sven Birkerts for example, in his book The Gutenberg Elegies, explains that books are an integral part of his life, defining who he is.  It seems as though the newness of these electronic texts almost threatens his existence.  He says, “to embrace the microchip and all its magic would be to close myself off from a great many habits and attitudes, ones that define me to myself; I would have to reposition myself on the space-time axis.  I would have to say goodbye to a certain way of looking at the world […]” (Birkerts, pg. 213).  This argument is clearly flawed in the way in which it is presented.  By explaining that coming to accept the new electronic era would involve readjusting in response to technology, he states himself, in the autobiographical section of his book, that back in his childhood novels were a discovery experience.  He says that as a child he encountered, “the startling and renewable discovery that a page covered with black markings could, with a slight mental exertion, be converted into an environment, an inward depth populated with characters and animated by diverse excitements” (Birkerts, pg. 35).  This statement about discovering literature as a child gives evidence of Birkerts’ ability to reposition himself from the old way of hearing stories as a child to being able to read them.  In a way he has already been able to make a transition as a child to printed works, just as the boundaries of printed works were crossed with the invention of the printing press.  It is in this way that he is contradicting himself when saying that crossing such boundaries to convert to electronic text is impossible.  The newness of literature to him as a child can be directly compared to the newness of electronic text to him as an adult.  It can be seen here that Birkerts’ argument to attempt to delegitimize electronic text is flawed.

Clearly, there is much debate over whether or not certain electronic texts are comparable to traditional literature.  It becomes clear that there is no reason to delegitimize electronic text simply because they are presented on a new and different medium.  The same amount of formulation and planning goes into writing such hypertexts as any traditional classic novel.  It seems that those who are opposed to the switch over to electronic text are simply wary of the inevitable onset of technology, possibly changing the world as they once knew it.  The inability of any opposition, like Sven Birkerts, to cross the boundary into the new technological age, as Katherine Hayles puts it, should not be a reason to diminish valid pieces of literature.

Final Project:  Crossing the Boundaries into the Realm of Electronic Text

Growing up in the 90’s, technology and the onset of new technology has always been part of my life.  I can just barely remember the early days of the Internet, where surfing the web would tie up the phone lines, as dial-up was the only way to connect to cyberspace. With the momentum of the technological age only gaining speed, certain new technologies are beginning to replace everyday items, which may have been part of everyday life in the past.  Most of these new technologies are viewed as positive additions to households and businesses, designed to make life more efficient and easy for the average person.  With the arrival of new ideas and inventions, the use of electronic texts as opposed to printed books is a concept that many are still trying to understand.

As someone who is accustomed to the constant influx of the latest pieces of technology, whether it’s the newest iPod, the world’s tiniest computer, or the digital handheld book, the addition of electronic text to society is something that I view as completely natural and almost inevitable.  My first legitimate experiences with electronic text occurred as early as the first time I used AOL instant messenger as a middle schooler.  Since the times of messaging classmates via screen names with the latest gossip, I have come across texts of legitimate literary value.  While exploring a database filled with electronic text I discovered Storyland written by Nanette Wylde. It displays short fragmented stories, broken up by sentences appearing one by one.  Before any of the text appears, an animated heading can be observed.  Flashing colorful letters flicker in and out and finally become stationary as a circus or carnival calliope audio plays in the background.  Once the story has completely appeared, and the reader has had a chance to read it, a simple click on the “new story” button in the bottom right corner causes the calliope music to start once again and a new and completely different story to appear.  Although it is apparent that reading this particular electronic text is much different than reading any traditional printed novel, the added animations and abstract organization of this text should not discount it as being a legitimate piece of literature.

Although it seems clear that just as much literary effort is put into electronic texts as traditional texts, there are still many who question their legitimacy.  Sven Birkerts for example, a strong advocate for the conventional printed book, explains that books are an integral part of his life, defining who he is.  It seems as though the newness of these electronic texts almost threatens his existence. He states in his book The Gutenberg Elegies that, “to embrace the microchip and all its magic would be to close myself off from a great many habits and attitudes, ones that define me to myself; I would have to reposition myself on the space-time axis.  I would have to say goodbye to a certain way of looking at the world […]” (Birkerts, pg. 213).  However, prior to his statement about his connection to books, he explains how back in the days before the technology of the phone, television, computer, Internet, and even books the main method of the dispersal of information was by word of mouth.  He goes on to explain further that word of mouth soon was recorded on paper and eventually mass produced, printed, and made available to those who could afford the luxury.  It is here that Birkerts exerts that mankind has already had to, at one point in their history, make the transition from word of mouth to printed books.  By insinuating that this transition has already been made, Birkerts opens up a whole new side to his argument by contradicting himself.

As children we all remember our first experiences with written text, whether the earliest, picture books, or the more advanced chapter books.  In the same way, Birkerts explains that like any another child learning to read he encountered, “the startling and renewable discovery that a page covered with black markings could, with a slight mental exertion, be converted into an environment, an inward depth populated with characters and animated by diverse excitements” (Birkerts, pg. 35).  This statement about discovering literature as a child gives evidence of Birkerts’ and every other person’s ability to reposition themselves from the old way of hearing stories as a child to being able to read them, just as people in the early 1400s switched gradually to accepting the wonders of the printing press.  When saying that crossing such boundaries to convert to electronic text is impossible he is clearly contradicting himself once again. The newness of literature to humans as children can be directly compared to the newness of electronic text experienced as adults.  It can be seen here that Birkerts’ argument to attempt to delegitimize electronic text is flawed.

Who’s to say that the computer isn’t the modern day printing press of our age? Undeniably, just as the printed book was the new and outlandish technology back in the days of the first printing press, electronic texts like Storyland are taking on the role of being the new and improved piece of literature that may seem very strange upon its first arrival.  In her book Writing Machines, Katherine Hayles, an advocate for the inception of technology, talks about the present day boundaries between printed books and electronic texts, undoubtedly the same boundaries that were crossed when the first printed book made its debut.  She says as a supporter of the transition to electronic text that, “electronic textuality was here to stay as more print books were reconstructed for the Web, from medieval manuscripts, to illustrated works like William Blake’s books, to multimedia sites devoted to such master texts as Joyce’s Ulysses” (Hayles, pg. 45).  It can clearly be seen in many ways that these electronic texts are simply an extension of literary work onto a different medium.  It is for this reason that Nanette Wylde should be considered just as much of an author as any other classical writer.

Undoubtedly, it is apparent that electronic text can simply be viewed as the inevitable extension of printed literature.  Just as spoken word transitioned into printed works, printed works are now transitioning naturally into electronic text.  Despite this seemingly expected evolution into the electronic age, there is still much debate over whether or not certain electronic texts should be comparable to traditional literature.  It becomes clear however, that there is no reason to delegitimize electronic text simply because it is presented on a new and different medium.  The same amount of formulation and planning goes into writing such hypertexts as any traditional classic novel.  It seems that those who are opposed to the switch over to electronic text are simply wary of the inevitable onset of technology, possibly changing the world, as they once knew it.  The inability of any opposition, like Sven Birkerts, to cross the boundary into the new technological age, as Katherine Hayles puts it, should not be a reason to diminish valid pieces of literature.

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber & Faber, 2006. Print.

Hayles, N. Katherine. Writing machines. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002. Print.

Is Electronic Text Legitimate?

With the onset of the technological age, certain new technologies are beginning to replace everyday items, which may have been part of everyday life in the past.  Most of these new technologies are viewed as positive additions to households and businesses, designed to make life more efficient and easy for the average person.  This arrival of new ideas and inventions includes the introduction of electronic texts into society, a concept that many are still trying to understand.  Many believe that electronic texts can never be as legitimate as classical literature.  Upon first inspection of an electronic text called Storyland, one may wonder if this unconventional bundle of text can be considered legitimate.  After reading through Storyland, I believe that simply the content alone of electronic texts allow them to be viewed as serious pieces of literature displayed on a different medium.

Storyland is a text written by Nanette Wylde.  It displays short fragmented stories, broken up by sentences appearing one by one.  Before any of the text appears, an animated heading can be observed.  Flashing colorful letters flicker in and out and finally become stationary as a circus or carnival calliope audio plays in the background.  Once the story has completely appeared, and the reader has had a chance to read it, a simple click on the “new story” button in the bottom right corner causes the calliope music to start once again and a new and completely different story to appear.  Undoubtedly it can be seen through this description that reading through this series of stories is not what most people consider the traditional way of reading.  With the flashing letters and sequential appearance of text, reading through this electronic text becomes an experience in itself.

Although it becomes apparent that reading Storyland is much different than reading any traditional printed novel, neither of these pieces should be discounted as being legitimate.  Just as the printed book was the new and outlandish technology back in the days of the first printing press, electronic texts like Storyland are taking on the role of being the new and improved piece of literature that may seem very strange upon its first arrival.  In her book Writing Machines, Katherine Hayles talks about the present day boundaries between printed books and electronic texts, undoubtedly the same boundaries that were crossed when the first printed book made its debut.  She says as a supporter of the transition to electronic text that, “electronic textuality was here to stay as more print books were reconstructed for the Web, from medieval manuscripts, to illustrated works like William Blake’s books, to multimedia sites devoted to such master texts as Joyce’s Ulysses” (Hayles, pg. 45).  It can clearly be seen in many ways that these electronic texts are simply an extension of literary work onto a different and more accessible medium.  Nanette Wylde should be considered just as much of an author as another other classical writer.  Where such literature is accessed should not determine its legitimacy.  It is for this reason that such pieces like Storyland have every right to be considered legitimate literary works.

Although it seems clear that just as much literary effort is put into electronic texts as traditional texts, there are still many who question the legitimacy of these new texts that can only be viewed on some type of screen.  Sven Birkerts for example, in his book The Gutenberg Elegies, explains that books are an integral part of his life, defining who he is.  It seems as though the newness of these electronic texts almost threatens his existence.  He says, “to embrace the microchip and all its magic would be to close myself off from a great many habits and attitudes, ones that define me to myself; I would have to reposition myself on the space-time axis.  I would have to say goodbye to a certain way of looking at the world […]” (Birkerts, pg. 213).  This argument is clearly flawed in the way in which it is presented.  By explaining that coming to accept the new electronic era would involve readjusting in response to technology, he states himself, in the autobiographical section of his book, that back in his childhood novels were a discovery experience.  He says that as a child he encountered, “the startling and renewable discovery that a page covered with black markings could, with a slight mental exertion, be converted into an environment, an inward depth populated with characters and animated by diverse excitements” (Birkerts, pg. 35).  This statement about discovering literature as a child gives evidence of Birkerts’ ability to reposition himself from the old way of hearing stories as a child to being able to read them.  In a way he has already been able to make a transition as a child to printed works, just as the boundaries of printed works were crossed with the invention of the printing press.  It is in this way that he is contradicting himself when saying that crossing such boundaries to convert to electronic text is impossible.  The newness of literature to him as a child can be directly compared to the newness of electronic text to him as an adult.  It can be seen here that Birkerts’ argument to attempt to delegitimize electronic text is flawed.

Clearly, there is much debate over whether or not certain electronic texts are comparable to traditional literature.  It becomes clear that there is no reason to delegitimize electronic text simply because they are presented on a new and different medium.  The same amount of formulation and planning goes into writing such hypertexts as any traditional classic novel.  It seems that those who are opposed to the switch over to electronic text are simply wary of the inevitable onset of technology, possibly changing the world as they once knew it.  The inability of any opposition, like Sven Birkerts, to cross the boundary into the new technological age, as Katherine Hayles puts it, should not be a reason to diminish valid pieces of literature.

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber & Faber, 2006. Print.

Hayles, N. Katherine. Writing machines. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002. Print.

Project 4 Composting

The name of the text that I will be critically evaluating is Storyland, a digital text that can be found in the Electronic Text Archive.  After reading this text and reading both criticism for and against such texts, I believe that electronic texts like Storyland, which defy what can be seen as normal and traditional literature, still are legitimate pieces of writing and should be recognized as such.  Although there is definitely much question about the legitimacy of electronic texts in comparison to traditional classic works, there are still those who insist that the coming of a new age of technology includes the transference of printed books to hypertext.  One of these supporters is Katherine Hayles, who encourages the crossing of this boundary on page 45 of her book Writing Machines.  She says she was,

“less interested in reinforcing boundaries [...] than in seeing what happened if you romp over them, which second generation works were exuberantly doing as they moved toward mutlimedia, creating works that contained components drawn from literature , visual arts, computer games, and programming practices.” (pg. 45).

An opposition to this argument can be seen in Sven Birkerts book, The Gutenberg Elegies.  He explains throughout his book the history tied to printed books and the transitory nature of electronic text.  Therefore a counter argument can be seen when Birkerts talks about the history of print and how much is can affect a person individually.  He says,

“To embrace the microchip and all its magic would be to close myself off from a great many habits and attitudes, ones that define me to myself; I would have to reposition myself on the space-time axis.  I would have to say good-bye to a certain way of looking at the world because that way is bound up with a set of assumptions about history and distance, and difficulty and solitude and the slow work of self-making- all of which go against the premises of instantaneousness, interactivity, sensory stimulation and ease that make the world of Wired attractive to so many.” (pg. 213)

This is one opposition statement from Birkerts which I could anticipate.

A Trip to Storyland with Birkerts and Hayles

The electronic text that I have chosen is called Storyland by Nanette Wylde.  This text displays short fragmented stories, broken up by sentences appearing one by one.  However, before any of the text appears, an animated heading can be observed.  Flashing colorful letters flicker in and out and finally become stationary as a circus or carnival calliope audio plays in the background.  Once the story has completely appeared, and the reader has had a chance to read it, a simple click on the “new story” button in the bottom right corner causes the calliope music to start once again and a new and completely different story to appear.

I found this digital text very entertaining and interesting.  I feel that it defies the traditional literary boundaries by the addition of animation of the page and the organization of the story.  Upon first glance at the page and the animated heading and the music I realized that this piece would not at all be boring as some older,more antiquated, and non-digital texts can be.

It is for this reason that I believe Sven Birkerts would loathe this piece of literature and Katherin Hayles would applaud it.  In Chapter 11 of The Gutenberg Elegies, Sven explains how hypertexts are becoming more prominent and how he believes that most people will never fully switch over the the new digital age, that when given

“the choice between univocal and polyvocal, linear and “open,” readers will opt for the more traditional package; that the reading act will remain rooted in the original giver-receiver premise [...].” (pg. 164)

Basing mainly off of this statement, I believe that Birkerts would not be able to appreciate the every changing format of Storyland.  Unlike print books, one could never look back on the same text twice when reading Storyland.  I believe that this is one of the many reasons why Birkerts is having such a hard time accepting hypertext as the new form of literature.

In complete contrast, I believe that Katherine Hayles would be in complete and utter approval of Storyland and the way that it is animated and organized.  Throughout her book writing machines, she advocates for the coming of the new age of technology.  She explains how the shift towards a totally multimedia world is becoming more and more feasible as more and more writers are crossing the boundaries of print and creating new and exciting pieces of literature.  She explains in Chapter 3 of Writing Machines that she, herself, when it comes to literature in the modern day,

“was less interested in reinforcing boundaries [...] than in seeing what happened it you romp over them, which second generation works were exuberantly doing as they moved toward multimedia, creating works that contained components drawn from literature, visual arts, computer games, and programming practices.” (pg. 45)

It becomes clear here that Hayles would indefinitely appreciate the animated features and not continuous nature of Storyland.  I believe that she understands where modern day multimedia is taking literature and she is in total approval of the transformation taking place.

Comparing Literature and Film

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the main character Victor’s creation turns into his own worst nightmare.  In Alex Proyas’ movie I, Robot, Will Smith works to uncover a similar situation.  In this futuristic society, set in the year 2035, Dr. Alfred Lanning creates robots to do everyday human tasks, to work almost as slaves.  It becomes apparent however, after the mysterious “suicide” of the creator of the robots, that the robots may not be the perfect helpers that they were designed to be.  The main character Will Smith suspects that the Doctor’s robot helper is in fact his murderer.  Therefore, similar to the novel Frankenstein, the Doctor’s creation has become, his own worst nightmare.  The way in which the film is shot specifically aids in its message, also showing how, as creation stories, I, Robot, and Frankenstein are both very alike.  In addition to the film technique, there are two specific scenes in particular in the movie, which greatly echo the themes of Frankenstein.

The first indication of specific filmmaking strategy is first the differences in the human characters and the robot characters.  The robots in the movie are clearly animated as opposed to the humans.  The fact that the robots are the only animated piece of the movie, greatly aids the story reinforcing how different they are intended to be from the humans and also emphasizing the fact that they are created and unnatural beings.  As the film develops, however, it becomes clear that despite their initial and intended automaton nature, they are in fact capable of emotional facial expressions, these actions even progressing into acts of full-blown rage.  It is through the filmmaker’s illustrations of the robots in comparison to the humans, that the relationship between this film and Mary Shelley’s novel becomes apparent.
One scene in particular where the way in which the robots are portrayed plays a huge role, involves Will Smith’s interrogation of the robot that he believes killed the doctor.  It becomes clear in this scene, the change in facial expression and emotion of the robot as he is questioned about the death of his master and creator.  Throughout the questioning, it becomes clear that the robot is becoming more and more perturbed and angry.  Finally the robot slams his fist in a fit of rage, something that the robots were thought to be incapable of.  It becomes clear here that the robots have achieved a level of understanding of the world and their own emotions that allows them to react in a way similar to enraged humans.  In the context of the situation, with a possible murder having occurred at the hands of one of the robots, that their seemingly newfound sense of emotion may be dangerous.  The robots seem to have become aware of their emotions and their relationship to the humans, just like Victor’s creature, after he left Victor’s apartment and ventured out into the real world.  It could be said that just as Victor’s creation realized what a monster he was in comparison to humans, the robots also seem to begin to realize how unfair their situation is and act out because of it.

Another scene, which echoes the themes of Frankenstein, involves the robots attack on Will Smith as he is driving in his car.  This apparent attack shows, like the interrogation scene, what type of emotion the robots are capable of.  It also shows their apparent rebellion as they come to realize through their acquisition of emotion that they are not being treated fairly.  They may even view their understanding of emotion similar enough to humans to realize that they are potential equals. This attack on Smith reiterates the creature’s attacks on Victor’s family and friends.  As Victor’s creature became aware of his own horrid creation as he acquires intelligence and emotion, he acts out against Victor, the person who had created him with such physical limitations.  In both the film and the movie, the created creatures find themselves unhappy with their situation and decide that rebellion is necessary.  In both cases, the robots and Victor’s creature, in becoming able to think for themselves, have become and extreme danger to human society.

It is clear as one watches the movie I, Robot, that there are certain themes which are very similar to the main themes seen in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  In addition to certain similarities, which can be seen though the plot of the film and the plot of the book, the way in which the film is shot, specifically the animation involved, further enforces its likeness to Frankenstein.  Therefore, undoubtedly, it can be observed though the comparison of these two mediums of entertainment that certain film specific strategy and other plot aspects greatly aid in the comparison and understanding of both the film and the book.

Proyas, Alex, dir. I, Robot. Twentieth Century Fox. 2004. Film.

Frankenstein’s Relation to Film

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the main character Victor’s creation turns into his own worst nightmare.  In Alex Proyas’ movie I, Robot, Will Smith works to uncover a similar situation.  In this futuristic society, set in the year 2035, Dr. Alfred Lanning creates robots to do everyday human tasks, to work almost as slaves.  It becomes apparent however, after the mysterious “suicide” of the creator of the robots, that the robots may not be the perfect helpers that they were designed to be.  The main character Will Smith suspects that the Doctor’s robot helper is in fact his murderer.  Therefore, in the same way as in Frankenstein, the Doctor’s creation has become, similar to Victor’s situation, his own worst nightmare.  There are two scenes in particular in the movie which greatly echo the themes of Frankenstein.

One of these scenes in particular, involves Will Smith’s interrogation of the robot which he believes killed the doctor.  It becomes clear in this scene, where the robot becomes enraged after Smith’s constant questioning, that the robots have achieved a level of understanding of the world and their own emotions that may be dangerous.  As the robots become aware of their emotions and their relationship to the humans, just like Victor’s creature, they seem to begin to realize how unfair their situation is and act out because of it.  The robots display of emotion can be observed in this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnLtsdSqU4.  Also, another scene which echos the themes of Frankenstein involves the robots attack on Will Smith as he is driving in  his car.  As he is driving he becomes cornered as the robots jump onto his car, breaking his windshield.  This attack on Smith reiterates the creatures attacks on Victor’s family and friends due to his own unhappiness. The scene can be observed here: http://www.youtube.com/watchv=Bzg1mzwZDko&feature=PlayList&p=9A2D5D549CD9385D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8.These scenes shows just how dangerous the robots, being able to think for themselves, have become to human society.

It becomes clear as one watches the movie I, Robot, that there are certain themes which are very similar to the main themes seen in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  Just as I wondered what would have happened if Frankstein treated his own creature with more respect and caring, I wonder if the robots would have rebelled in the same way if they were not treated as slaves.  If there was the chance that the robots could achieve the ability to think for themselves, perhaps they should not have been treated as poorly as they were in the movie.  It seems to me that their rebellion could have been most likely avoided, just as the rebellion of Frankenstein’s creature could have been avoided.

Writing Assignment #2

While many readers tend to view Frankenstein as a simple, classic horror story, an understanding of Mary Shelley’s connection to John Milton’s Paradise Lost shows a more complicated story.  This connection reveals how the creation of the monster can in some ways be related to God’s creation of Adam.  We see this complication particularly where the monster himself begins to read and identifies with the characters of Satan and Adam.  Although this more complicated version of the Frankenstein story, in terms of who is essentially evil, may not be familiar to many readers or viewers of Frankenstein, in my view it is crucial to the understanding of Shelley’s novel.

After Victor Frankenstein’s creation has escaped from his apartment, the creature takes refuge in the woods where he observes human life through a hole in the wall of a family’s cabin.  Through the close observation of their everyday lives, he is able to learn much about human interaction and he learns how to communicate through verbal and written words.  One night, as he resides in the woods, he comes across a satchel of books.  One of these books is John Milton’s Paradise Lost, which he is fortunately able to read, having learned the language of the cabin dwellers.  As a new creature on earth, he has no sense of the world’s history or the history of human kind.  Therefore he reads Paradise Lost as a “true history,” (Shelley, pg. 116) believing that such events did in fact occur at some point in human history.

Reading through the book, he was able to identify with the main character Adam’s situation in certain aspects.  He says that like Adam,

“I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect.  He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator” (Shelley, pg. 116)

After he is reunited with Victor later in the novel, he explains that he dealt with the loneliness of being the only one of his kind.  However, he also realizes upon observing Adam in the book, that Adam’s creator took pride in this creation and did not shun him as Victor had cast him aside.  It is for this reason that the creature feels he can also empathize with Satan.  He further explains that,

“Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (Shelley, pg. 117).

Although the creature is similar to Adam in the way in which he was created, he is also similar to Satan in his feelings of envy.  It also becomes clear that Victor and Adam’s creators are not similar at all.  In Frankenstein, Victor is very self-centered, only creating such a creature to be able to say that he could defy the natural processes of life and death.  God, on the other hand, creates Adam out of love and does not abandon him once he is created as Victor abandons the creature.  Victor’s intentions when creating the creature and his actions following the completion of the creature ultimately caused the creature’s unhappiness and hatred for humans.  In affect it is Victor who takes on the role of evil villain in Mary Shelley’s novel as opposed to most film depictions of the story, where the creature is viewed as the villain.

It becomes clear in the novel that Mary Shelley’s inclusion of the allusion to Paradise Lost is essential to understanding the novel fully.  It allows the reader to recognize the roles of each of the characters and to enhance their understanding of the novel, possibly changing their preconceptions of who is essentially good and who is evil in this popularize story.

Frankenstein and Paradise Lost

Throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Shelley makes many allusions to other literary works including poems written by her late husband.  There is one literary work however, that I believe can be most accurately compared to the story that Mary Shelley is telling.  In the novel, the creature tells Frankenstein how he acquired some books while he was hiding out in the forest, watching the people in the cottage.  During this time he came across the book “Paradise Lost.”  Due to his lack of knowledge of human history, he mistook this book for a “true history” (Shelley, pg. 116).  He was able to relate to the main characters Adam’s situation in certain aspects, he says that like Adam,

“I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect.  He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator” (Shelley, pg. 116)

Similar to Adam, he explains that he dealt with the loneliness of being the only one of his kind.  However, upon observing Adam in the book, he realizes that his creator took pride in this creation and did not shun him as Frankenstein has cast him aside.

It becomes clear in this way, that although the creature is similar to Adam in the way that they were created, it also becomes clear that Frankenstein and Adam’s creator, God, in Paradise Lost, are not similar at all.  In Frankenstein, Victor is very self-centered, only creating such a creature to be able to say that he could defy the natural processes of life and death.  God, on the other hand, creates Adam out of love and does not abandon him once he is created as Victor abandons the creature.  I believe that Victor’s intentions when creating the creature caused his downfall and ultimately caused the creature’s unhappiness and hatred for humans.

It is for this reason that I wonder what would have occurred if  Victor approached his experiment in a different way.  If he approached the experiment as something that would not necessarily just benefit him, but as something that would benefit all of man-kind, perhaps the project would have been more successful.  If Victor was not so self-centered would the creation appear differently, maybe even normal?  If he had not neglected the monster could the deaths of William and Justine and the endangerment of mankind have been avoided?  I believe if Victor had not been so selfish in the creation of the monster much of the guilt and issues he experiences could have been avoided.

Frankenstein

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein a young man’s interest in the sciences leads him to an experiment which threatens his own life and the life of those around him.  At the age of seventeen, Victor, is sent away from his home in Geneva to study in Ingolstadt.  Before leaving, a close family friend, Elizabeth, becomes ill in turn causing his mother who was nursing her to also get sick.  His mother, unlike Elizabeth is not able to recover from the fever and she dies.  After experiencing the death of such a close family member, Victor departs for school.  While there his love for the sciences grows and he becomes fascinated with life and death.  It is this fascination which causes him to attempt to create a superhuman creature to defy such natural processes.  He thinks of the recognition he would receive if he was able to create a new species of human being.  He also realizes how the boundaries of life and death would drastically change if he was able to create ad new species.  He explains,

“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.  A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.”

With this attitude he creates this new species.  After the experiment, the appearance of his creation is a monstrosity, frightening him out of his own apartment.  Upon returning, the monster is gone.  With the creation of the monster weighing on his conscience, the encounter with the monster in his apartment is far from his last.  Realizing that he will never be accepted by humans the monster vows revenge against all humans.  It is this way which Victor has endangered the lives of those around him.

It is undeniable that the combination of the death of his mother and his interest in the sciences caused Victor to create this monster-like being.  In doing so, however, he attempted to defy nature by finding a way to beat death and create life.  It becomes clear as the story progresses that the creation of this creature, which clearly, was unnatural, was a terrible idea.  By attempting to almost reverse all natural processes, he becomes cursed with the burden of the monster as it wreaks havoc in its revenge against humans.  I believe that this burden is something that Victor deserves for the creation of such a being.  Nature and the natural world and its processes are not something that should be tampered with.  The circle of life and death is something that just simply happens, it is perpetual and unchanging.  Therefore, his attempt to alter mortality and fate is something should not be done.  It is clear that trying to cheat death is something that cannot be done without severe consequences.

After reading through the novel, I wonder what would have occurred if his experiment was successful.  If he could have created a human who looked normal and was not monster-like in appearance, would the same problems occur?  It seems that the creation’s appearance caused most of the problems in the novel.  However, it can not be said that the new species would totally fit in and thrive if they looked like normal human beings.

The Transformation of Reading and Writing

In Sven Birkerts’ collection of essays, The Glutenberg Elegies, he argues that reading and writing have become two mediums, which have lost their place in the present, modern technological society.  In my experience, similarly I have found that in this changing society there has been a definite shift in the importance of reading and writing in the modern day. As a kid growing up in the 90’s, technology and the onset of new technology has always been part of my life.  I can just barely remember the early days of the Internet where surfing the web would tie up the phone lines, as dial-up was the only way to connect to cyberspace.  In consequence, since an early age, the media, whether it was the television or computer, were my main sources of information.  Although I did read as a child, and all the way through my school years, acquisition of information through the media became the easiest way to stay in touch with the world.  It is for this reason that I believe the importance of reading and writing has undoubtedly faded over the past 20 years.

Throughout his book, Sven Birkerts asserts his opinion on the recent drastic changes in society regarding how people acquire their information.  He explains how back in the days before the technology of the phone, television, computer, Internet and even books the main method of the dispersal of information was by word of mouth.  He goes on to explain further that word of mouth soon was recorded on paper and eventually was mass produced and printed and made available to those that could afford this luxury.  Before this time, where books were few and far between due to the labor involved in hand recording information, men read “only a few books- the Bible, an almanac, a devotional work or two […]” (Birkerts, pg.71).  By the 1800’s after the invention of the printing press, Birkerts explains, “men were reading “extensively.” They read all kinds of material, especially periodicals and newspapers” (Birkerts, pg. 71).  He gives these examples of the drastic change the invention of a printing machine produced in order to convey his belief that the same drastic change is occurring once again.  It is his observation, with which I firmly agree, that the same cultural change taking place in the modern day as the presence of the media in people’s everyday lives becomes harder and harder to escape.

In one section of his book, Birkerts recalls his experience teaching a college class on American literature.  He explains how he picked books for them to read which he “thought would appeal to the tastes of the average undergraduate and felt relatively confident” (Birkerts, pg. 17) about it.  He found however, as the students read through the books, which he, himself, thought were great, the students found “the story over-long, verbose, and a chore” (Birkerts, pg. 17).  Thinking that it may just have been the book he selected, he received the same type of response to one of his similar selections.  Most students could not pinpoint their disinterest.  It was not that they couldn’t understand the language or the vocabulary; it was more due to the fact that the books were old.  The students had trouble reading the story because it wasn’t about something relative to the here and now.  The stories were too antiquated for the young generation to understand.  Having had this experience myself, I completely understand why reading such books was so arduous for the students.  Throughout middle school and high school reading for school became much more of a chore than reading the latest Harry Potter book or Twilight book.  Throughout school, teachers always chose the classics to read, a few of my least favorites being The Awakening, Jane Eyre, Emma, and Great Expectations.  Reading these books because of their antiquity and because they seemed so far-removed from my modern life, became very unpleasant.  It is in this way that I can relate to how Birkerts’ undergraduate students may have been feeling in this class.  It was not the language of the books or the vocabulary that caused my dislike; it was simply that I was disinterested in the “old times.” With all information being thrown at us from a computer or television screen, who wants to take the time anymore to read and book and contemplate how its meaning could relate to life?  I firmly believe that the exposure of our generation to technology and the media has caused this disconnect with the past.

In the same way, writing had become much of a chore for me throughout middle school and high school.  Whenever there was the slight chance that I would enjoy the certain books that teachers chose for projects and class writing assignments, I experienced much of the same feeling Birkerts experienced as a college student.  He explains that during his time in college, a time where he was so obsessed with reading, he says that “the classroom setting did not kindle my imagination; if a book was on a syllabus, I lost interest” (Birkerts, pg.49).  In a similar way, I felt the same about most books I read in school and then was instructed to write extensively about.  For me, being forced to follow strict guidelines while writing about a book that I may have had a slight interest in, both exterminated my interest in the book and also my interest in writing about it.  Despite losing interest, I would always go through the motions and adhere to the task that was assigned, more out of the necessity to do well than anything else.  It was experiences like these throughout my school career, which totally took the fun out of writing for me.  Once again I believe that this rebellious attitude of mine relates to the fact that I have grown up in such a technological age where writing and other forms of expression have become so easily shared, whether over the internet or on the television.  This sense of freedom which I experience everyday through various forms of media has caused the youth of my generation to wonder about the necessity of adhering to guidelines.  I believe that this is the way in which most youths have come to resent conformity imposed by teachers and other authority figures.  Students have become confused between what they experience through the media and what they are asked to do in the classroom.   Therefore, like Birkerts explains in his book, it seems that the media has caused a definite shift in the way writing is viewed by the youth our generation.

Undeniably, through the example of both Birkerts’ experiences and my own experiences, it has become clear to me that there has been a distinct change in the emphasis of reading and writing in the modern day.  With the increased use of the media as a main source of information, it seems that many people are, in the present day, more likely to search the Internet for the latest news or gossip than to pick up the morning newspaper or the latest magazine.  It is clear that this disconnect, which is irrefutably attributed to the sudden plunge into an almost purely technological era, is greatly affecting the way in which students view and experience reading and writing.