Pulp – Google Wave – Fiction
Hi, I came across this interesting adaptation made with Google Wave (that I have fun with exploring it lately): Google Wave Cinema: Pulp Fiction.
And as a side note: It got me thinking can such a work be considered as an example of e-literature? And what actually is e-literature? (This has been a concern of mine for about a year now as a collateral damage of my MA.) So – e-literature has something to do with electricity (mostly realised on the screen). It was popular to use this term (?) to make a difference from the print culture. But as today everything has to do something with the electricity (and even books are made digitally all the way to being print down) this just doesn’t seem to be describing anything specific. And literature seems to be just the same if spoken, written down or Twittered. (Yes, we might use those media differently – but I don’t see any specific internal quality that would be distinguishing for an e-literature – what ever that might be that is.)
So I got down to idea that e-literature (as a term) is at its best a fuzzy – and more ideological than theoretical – term describing a state of widely diverse literature affairs in a period of time (over by now to that). Still – I would be very interested to hear some opponents to this – a bit pessimistic, I admit – idea. Any thoughts on that?
Tags: narrative | Wave
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
19 Responses to “Pulp – Google Wave – Fiction”.
I would say that there has been an effort to attach certain practices (primarily those that utilize computation as a part of the aesthetic approach, or distinctive characteristics of the network context) to the term “electronic literature” which has been largely if not completely successful. The vague, not-clearly-delimited adjective “electronic” is not vague by mistake, but on purpose, at least that’s what I recall from when we were choosing the name for the ELO. Some people favored more specificity at that time — why not call it the “Hypertext Fiction Organization,” for instance? My argument was that the word “literature” would signal an affiliation with a set of historical cultural practices involving expressions that use the written word and the word “electronic” would signal a distinction from print literary culture and practices. And I think that’s enough for a term that is not meant to define in the sense of shutting as-yet-undefined practices out. I know a lot of people hate it, but I still like it and think it fulfills its semiotic function. While it is not specific, neither is it exclusive or particularly confusing. People can quibble about what is and what isn’t electronic literature, but there is a general sense of understanding now that “e-lit” is not a book, and is not a simple PDF. There is a general sense that there is an “electronic literature” culture that is distinct from print literary culture. I would say the pulp fiction Google Wave video is not particularly interesting as literature, though it is interesting as a sort of software demo. I would call it a “YouTube video cleverly demonstrating collaboration software” and leave it at that. I think the function of the term “electronic literature” is to refer to a set of practices at a very general level. And iI think it works fine for that. We can use other words to describe genres with greater specificity.
As for the time of diverse experimentation in literary forms being over now, I just disagree. When were there more opportunities for experimenting with literary forms? When were there more writing and communication technologies available to exploit, subvert, hack, remix, play with? When could more forms of artistic practice be more easily integrated into the literary artifact? What? Did somebody pull the plug?
This month or next, I’ll post a review of a new book called ‘A Philosophy of Computer Art’ by Dominic Lopes, a philosophy prof in Vancouver. He sets out to write a philosophy concerning art in which the computer is essential for the creation, display, and appreciation of the art. He also distinguishes ‘computer art’ from ‘digital art’. ‘Digital art’ is a more broad term, in his book. If we scan a painting to display it on computers, that qualifies in his book as ‘digital art’. As you imply, Jaka, there has to be some such term for art that isn’t ‘computer art’ but has entered the digital realm in one way or another.
He ends up writing a philosophy of interactive computer art. Here is his definition of computer art:
“An item is a computer art work just in case (1) it’s art, (2) it’s run on a computer, (3) it’s interactive, and (4) it’s interactive because it’s run on a computer.”
But there are works we would all agree should be described as ‘computer art’ that are not interactive with the audience. Such as AARON by Harold Cohen; AARON draws pictures somewhat autonomously.
So Lopes’s book is basically a philosophy of interactive computer art. Which is an interesting thing to write a book about–it’s a wonderful book. His distinction between ‘computer art’ and ‘digital art’ is useful. And his use of the term ‘computer art’ rather than ‘digital art’ to describe art in which the computer is crucial is probably a good idea (rather than ‘digital art’).
But I think, as Scott indicates, you have to look at the role of computation in the creation, display, and appreciation of the work to deal with the entire class of works we would want to describe as ‘computer art’.
I agree with Scott, I think there’s a general understanding of what electronic literature is and the fuzziness of the term is one of its strengths. I like the term because it comes (at least in my imagination) in three broad fuzzy flavours: ‘electronic literature’ is deep, dense, serious, respectably academic; ‘e-literature’ can be equally deep, etc., but sounds more accessible; and ‘e-lit’ simply sounds like fun!
To piggyback on Scott’s point, I just spoke with an advisee about getting into my electronic literature class this winter. She was seriously confused about what I might mean by electronic literature…. and when I started showing her examples of pieces… she was gripped by a sudden excitement. I think we who are already reading might seem to have a sense sometimes of electronic literature being complete. If we have been exploring the edges, we have a sense of where they are. And sometimes I feel like we have explored, conceptually, a number of possibilities for what electronic literature can look like very well.
But if we put it into perspective…. Walpole’s the Castle of Otranto is considered the first gothic novel. And while it is interesting in many respects and occasionally entertaining, it is nothing next to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (which some consider an early science fiction novel, rather than an exemplary gothic novel). But then you might jump ahead to a wide range of “gothic” fictions by people like Faulkner or O’Connor, who I prefer to Walpole or Shelley in many respects. Or, you can take it down the SF path towards people like Gibson or Stephenson…. and we haven’t even begun to discuss the many manifestations of the gothic outside of print (Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl, Jason Nelson’s Panhandle, Rob Wittig’s Fall of the Sight of Marsha, or the “ghost hunter” folklore that my students seem to enjoy on youtube).
The reason I bring all this up is because when we pull away from the conceptual aspects of the art and get over the novelty of particular formal experiments…. we can focus on the other aspects of literature. People still write sonnets, and as much as I tend to regard them as boring, they seem to have gotten better lately. After people first tried them, considered them obligatory, came to hate them… and now can write them and use the baggage itself as another medium of expression. (I’m thinking, in particular, of Jamie McKendrick’s “The Spleen Factory”…. which is bitter, misanthropic, and violent).
It’s not to say that I don’t enjoy the cool stuff that makes my eyes pop out of my head. And it’s not to say that there isn’t a ton of really good writing already. But there is much, much more to be written, there are many more stories to tell, many more corners of consciousness to be explored, and many subtle ways that future writers will exploit the tools, cliches, and patterns that threaten us with malaise. But when novelty loses its charm, then it’s time to look for richness. Or, another way to think about it is: What will literature look like when created by someone who takes born digital literature for granted?
Dear Jim,
(& Scott – I’ll get back to you soon [thnx for input!] – I just need a day or two to think things over.)
I too feel a great need to distinguish literature/art that is computational based (authors use programming as part of their expression) to the one that just uses computational media as a content carrier on a level of user interface, be that a generative code based poem vs. a haiku written in text editor (I’m talking about the form and its underlying existence not about the appearance).
‘E-literature’ (again Scott – I’ll get there in the next post) as a term fails to make such a distinction. E-literature is just everything that happens to be:
- literature (based)
- electronic/digital
Which today is about 97,3 % of all the content around if you are in the online culture. (It was different even a few years ago).
As everything gets not only digital but also mainstream I just feel a need to be more precise. E-literature is just too vague (but as understood historically it was very important concept) to describe anything. We need a more precise theory of what is going on now. More accurate: we need a theory that would explain levels of computational involvement in the content. (And monetising, critical, interpretative and reception consequences – in that order or not). As geeks retired (open source is in the White House) its time for literature geeks to stand up and shout. We are not pdf on Kindle or Nook. Its way more interesting/different. Was it not all the time about that?
“Or, another way to think about it is: What will literature look like when created by someone who takes born digital literature for granted?”
To quote Sontag: “From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art.”
In that sense, Davin, it continues not to be taken for granted. There being no return from consciousness to consciouslessness except via poisonous cheese.
“But if we put it into perspective…. Walpole’s the Castle of Otranto is considered the first gothic novel….or the “ghost hunter” folklore that my students seem to enjoy on youtube).”
That’s mangled, of course. Forgive me. But harumph there’s the gist of it Watson. Or shall we say that once we “get over the novelty of particular formal experiments…. we can focus on the other aspects of literature. People still write sonnets….when novelty loses its charm, then it’s time to look for richness.”
You think Jaka–me too?–is simply talking about the value of “formal experiments”. We’re talking about the place of the literary in computer art. and by ‘computer art’, i don’t simply mean “formal experiments”. i mean an art form. Other examples of art forms are painting, music, theatre…
There is sometimes a misplaced condescencion antagonistic to emphasis on the literary correlative of ‘computer art’ over ‘the rest of the literary in the arena of the digital’, Gavin, in favour of what we already understand and can ourselves mangle such as sonnets or, more likely, the media/cognitive architecture of print and large cheese.
Some of my best friends write sonnets. I cannot turn away from them for such a sin. And indeed I sometimes repent my evil ways and see the error of my pride in disdain of the oft-reverred sonnet, a human error borne of pride for which I shall certainly burn in the pits of hell. Yet, even so, so shall I exalt computer art as a form of art, not simply a ‘formal experiment’.
Boo (k),
ja
http://vispo.com
Jaka, I wonder, why do you feel a need for a more precise term than e-literature? The term ‘novel’ is equally vague and, since the novel is hardly new(nouvelle) anymore, it’s also wildly inaccurate, but it still serves its purposes. Readers and writers are comfortable with it, we know loosely what it means, which is precisely its value, that looseness. It’s a hold-all term, like ‘e-literature’. Genre definitions – as and when identifiable genres emerge, which takes time – will take care of the finer detail.
Why worry too much about what this stuff is called? To pick up on Davin’s point, did Mary Shelley worry whether she was writing a gothic novel or a science-fiction? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Surely the important thing is to be creating it, reading it, promoting it.
Having said that, I do understand that precise definitions are much more important for theoreticians than they are for practitioners (which is where I’m coming from, as if you hadn’t already guessed) – and I realise that in the field of e-lit, practitioners are often theoreticians too and vice versa – but it’s also important to consider the general reader. If a term gains some currency, does it matter how accurate it is as long as it’s generally understood and being used?
I too am very interested in Jaka’s recent question what is digital literature ? – title of the first chapter of Katherine Hayles print 2008 book and previously discussed here in Mark Sample’s post “Teaching Electronic Literature as a Foreign Land” (http://netpoetic.com/2009/09/teaching-electronic-literature-as-a-foreign-land/) ironically almost a rhetorical question IMHO that won’t go away or ever get a definitive answer, it simply cannot be fully satisfied until superseded by something else, maybe called neuroptical or hologrammatic literature or ….
Thus right now I’m also trying to slowly define not just what it is, but of more temporary importance to me : where it is ? i.e. in terms of an intellectual or academic framework into which it might fit – I know the answers to both questions are extremely complex and perhaps ultimately subjective – hence my own decision to devote three years of my life to finding an answer that might to some extent personally satisfy me and my own ideas about my own digitally born work (ok PhD examiners too).
Jaka’s initial pulp fiction example suggests early remix or remediation criteria and on Halloween ( with the Gothic Shelly stuff goin’ on ) its perhaps appropriate that to me there ironically seems to be an uber-referenced academic zombie paper buried alive beneath any ‘conceptual discourse on deconstructive methodologies using the google wave application as an editing environment’ (that’s what I’d call it maybe)
yet I’d view that particular digital artifact as mere slickly edited video thing, entertaining & derivative – I think to date one particularly strong aspect that allows digital literature to succeed might have something to do with authorial intention (within an academically informed imagination) – maybe, what as Jim highlights, Davin terms: ‘the novelty of particular formal experiments.’ I’m just not sure what is at its core exactly – which is why, like many others, I come here as much to learn as for any other reason. As a writer I find it easy to forget but pretty hard to unlearn…
I do perceive as entirely valid Scott’s point regarding the huge swathes of inherited print literature tradition or practice or genre (or whatever specific tag or label most applicable) already attempted in some manifestation of digital format. And yup many have yet to receive serious or sustained close readings and that maybe is the major part of the rationale behind the ELO’s recent online DB initiative.
While I think Christine must be correct in her own three interpretations of electronic literature, e-literature and e-lit – I see genuine danger in restricting electronic or digital literature to only dramatic or serious criteria. (Very) Briefly consider what traditional literary understanding might be without Aristophanes, Sterne, Swift, Wilde and others…. literature as a concept (from roman times onwards) merely referred to the break from sacred writing – so it has secular roots – or maybe to borrow Michael Joyce’s idea some kind of ‘othermindedness’. So it might be counterintuitive if we were to all agree on an agreeable definition in the first instance.
What ever about 97.3% of anything, perforating the current corpus there seem to be many empty spaces populated with minimal amounts of digital literature – in my own limited (research) experience there is a dearth of humor or comedy based digital literature – (in comparison to other literature formats) perhaps because trying to create Digital Literature that’s intentionally comedic can make you feel like a one legged man balancing bags of cats on a burning tightrope above flaming canyons of serious disinterest – or not, as the case may be.
Digital Literature and Comedy leads to subjectivity squared; meaning an already reduced audience is depleted even further – however there is so much immediate room for ‘play’ in digital literature – I only have to think of the fun /playful almost irreverent & creatively cheeky aspects of Jason’s work – which is a solid source of inspiration – and also serves to bring me back to my original purpose behind writing this comment –
Can anyone point me in the direction of successful comedic or humorous digital literature ? Forgive my cheese pun Jim but all and any help would be grate-fully accepted.
Back channel is good too.
THX
MJM
“While I think Christine must be correct in her own three interpretations of electronic literature, e-literature and e-lit – I see genuine danger in restricting electronic or digital literature to only dramatic or serious criteria.”
I wasn’t trying to restrict anything, I was trying to express how useful the fuzziness of the term ‘electronic literature’ is because it’s so open and inclusive. It’s also very user-friendly – e.g. if I were writing a funding application, I would use ‘electronic literature’ but chatting to a friend, I would use ‘e-lit’. But more importantly, it’s how these three variants of the term can be use to promote e-literature, to build readerships/audiences/fanbases. For some, ‘electronic literature’ might sound too formal and off-putting, whereas ‘e-literature’ or ‘e-lit’ might sound more inviting.
i don’t have a problem with the fuzziness of the term ‘electronic literature’. it allows a great deal of diverse work under one name. that’s valuable.
but it’s also valuable for forms of art to achieve their own definition. this doesn’t mean that they replace the meaning of ‘electronic literature’ with their own meaning. but that they achieve their own definition. it isn’t a matter of warfare.
for instance, i am basically most interested in ‘computer art’. by that i mean art in which the computer is crucial in the creation, display, and appreciation of the art. whether it is literary or visual or sonic or some combination or whatever. programming is crucial to this sort of art.
electronic literature includes computer art with a literary dimension. but those involved in such art need to make their own publications, for instance, where this sort of work can be showcased on its own terms.
artists involved in it can still of course publish in publications of ‘electronic literature’.
literary computer art has as much in common with non-literary computer art as it does with electronic literature.
but there’s not a lot of literary computer art around. not too many poet programmers.
we need to infiltrate the computer science departments as much as the english departments or creative writing departments or the media arts departments…
mind you, i’m as close to any of them as i am to the sanitation department of public works here in victoria.
At my college we use a different tool for working on our projects online.
Its free and needs no installation since its online, go to http://www.showdocument.com
pretty useful for me since i usually do my projects on the laptop. -chrisman
I don’t want you to misunderstand what I wrote Christine. You say the term ‘electronic literature’ in its first fuzziness or flavor’ refers to something deep and serious – but then change your initial term to ‘e-literature’ or e-lit for less formal usage – Does that support an idea that the original term ‘electronic literature’ is somehow incapable of accommodating work that is perhaps superficially frivolous, humorous /comedic or may not initially appear or strike as ‘deep’ or ‘serious’? I genuinely don’t know and my central concern is that potential restriction, not your interpretation, or your usage of other terms. Which is why I ask to be pointed towards examples.
What is it ? Where is it?
As I state at the outset – “I know the answers to both questions are extremely complex and perhaps ultimately subjective” which is why I state ‘Christine must be correct’ – my point, in reference to your post was that the original term ‘electronic literature’ in isolation, for me, and maybe only me, must include/embrace/allow fun, funny, comedic or humorous work, if it supposedly signals or suggests what is accessible/present in print ‘literature’ – which means using the term ‘electronic literature’ or ‘digital literature’ to describe that kind/type of work without recourse to contraction or informality.
Mick, what I intended to say was that ‘electronic literature’ includes it all!
Jim, yes, “we need to infiltrate the computer science departments as much as the english departments or creative writing departments or the media arts departments…” and we need to infiltrate the non-academic world much more too. Correct me if I’m wrong (which I could well be) but there doesn’t seem to have been as many collective attempts to get e-literature in front of a ‘general audience’ as there have been academic conferences, seminars, etc. (granted that some of these events also attract members of the general public, e.g. e-Poetry 09 in Barcelona). In the UK there has been this if:book initiative – http://fictional-stimulus.ning.com/ – which was a valiant attempt, but I suspect we need to do a lot more live readings/performances to raise the profile.
Jim (and Jaka), I am sorry to throw the term “formal experiment” out there, as if experimenting with form itself isn’t literary…. or as if people who do experiment with form aren’t using this to say things. It is a false partition I have drawn… and only useful, really, for the sake of argument. Sorry if I sounded dismissive in any way.
And I would never say that writing electronic literature itself is a novelty. I think, however, for many people it IS a novelty. Whenever I teach my electronic literature course, students first fixate on the stuff that makes loud noises and moves a lot. Next, they want to bring examples of any interesting thing they’ve seen online, and call it electronic literature. Only after that initial fascination wears down a little, do they focus on reading more closely, on re-reading, on listening to the artist. And, since I am usually presenting all of my students with their first taste of electronic literature, I am just guessing that this is true across the board–even for literary folks and programmers–that their first brush with electronic literature is going to be skewed by the ways it differs from what they are used to (I remember reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for the first time…. and thinking everything I wrote had to be like that… putting on its style like a costume, and never realizing that I liked it for its honesty). But after they get a little used to it, the things they read and write, and the ways they read and write, are going to take them closer to what’s literary about electronic literature.
We are really at the beginning of a new wave of literary production that will probably have a history like that of the sonnet or the novel… aesthetically responding to a whole host of technical, educational, cultural, political, etc. changes… over decades, if not centuries. And while there are tons of amazing things today already, what would it be like if it were nourished and cultivated around the world. And, I can’t help but asking, what will electronic literature look like when it is old? In 300 years, what will be read alongside Shakespeare? In a sense, these kinds of speculative experiments of mine are meaningless…. but I still find them fun. I am not an artist. And I would be very uncomfortable deciding which work is “the best.” But there will be, there already are, works that people will come back to again and again, that will form our ideas about life and culture. Someday people will study the dead computer languages just so they can read poems.
I just think there is so far to go. And we are really at the dawn of something exciting.
I’m a huge fan of ELO and I respect deeply the wide variety of efforts put into the area of electronic literature from theoretical framework to promotion and conservation if I name just a few. The pollution of the term ‘electronic literature’ comes from outside.
I have to make a step back to explain this. I’m an author of electronic/computational literature (and art – but lately that aspect is mostly in past tense). I’m a programmer. At my day-job I work in IT department of biggest Slovene publishing house taking care of internet related affairs (even if only partly, e-books included). Even though I’m not active as an author of theoretical work I find the theory to be crucial for my creative practise as well as for my professional life. I have one foot in creative practice, one in academia and one foot in commercial publishing world (which should make me a proper monster
In the commercial world the “electronic literature” is understood in specific way that can be summarised as monetising of the book-as-a-pdf-alike-format using devices that resemble a book but offer less to the reader. Nothing new since the 90s but Nook looks better than early attempts of the platform and iPhone seems to get momentum on e-reading/monetising (as well as offering interesting set of sensors for a programming capable author). And there is lots of PR that will made concept thought by people around ELO and similar institutions even harder to get across to. E-literature is taken over by business – that’s what I meant by the end of it. Of course there is all but a lack of creative and explorative pieces of e-literature authors – still mostly inside the academia or associated venues far from the eyes of the mainstream that has own interpretation of electronic literature.
It’s this – quite recent in my opinion – context that makes me think of more precise definition of e-literature. Or I should – as suggested in discussion – just opt in for a specific subset of the wide-embracing e-literature description. But if so I think I would loose the important historic context of electronic literature (or would I not?).
And to add to that: how does digitized historical literature in digital library (I welcome this greatly) differ from digital born literature according to ELOs definition? How does digital born literature using only interfaces differ from computational based one (I do this)? I guess these questions were not so relevant some time ago but with new players on the field I think these questions are crucial.
Ahh… I see what you are getting at, Jaka. I was worried, perhaps, that you felt that something was waning among the things I consider electronic literature (none of which are pdfs and other duplicates of print-based books–although I do wonder with enthusiasm what will happen when these old books become annotated). And I really do see, here, among this community, an ascendant spirit. So, I was reading and responding like an idiot. My apologies.
Christine, ya well there’s the Upgrade. Which is kind of a cool thing. It exists in many cities around the world. It’s a network of events. I showed On Lionel Kearns at the Vancouver Upgrade organized by Kate Armstrong. And I went and saw David Jhave Johnston another time in Vancouver at the Upgrade.
I went to a new poetry venue here in Victoria the other evening to listen to my friend Cliff Syringe. The new venue is in a coffee shop. It could be interesting to see if I can hook into the Upgrade and do a monthly event at the coffee shop on computer art. I did a poetry event for a couple of years some years ago in a different, bigger coffee shop.
Not sure what’s here in Victoria concerning computer art apart from at the University. But a downtown thing is always good. If there isn’t much downtown it ain’t much of a town.
But of course the net has been so cool since the mid nineties for showing work and seeing what others are up to. And it still is. But something downtown would be nice also.
Looking at my web stats, most of my visitors come from Google and other search engines. I expect there’s a lot of students and so on, but I would expect the majority are just regular folks in their dens or at work. I would think there is quite an audience from the general public but it’s invisible, like we tend to be in the traditional coffeshop and performance and lecture venues.
Jaka, without going hard-and-fast on any definition, I think the distinction between electronic literature and e-books is primarily a matter of intent. In the first category I would generally place artifacts that are “born digital” in the sense that their authors/developers conceived of the computational and/or networked nature of the artifact as an aesthetic aspect of the work from its conception. That is, the digitality of the of the work is an artistic medium and material in the same sense that words are. The code and the words are both consciously authored. The network is a material for the electronic literature author in the same sense as clay might by for the sculptor. In the second case of the e-book, the digital nature of the artifact is a secondary characteristic, one that the author does not engage with in a conscious way. The point in that case is distributing the artifact in a new medium — the intent of its digitality (if that’s even a word) is to reach new platforms and new markets. It`s distribution context is not meant to affect the aesthetic nature of the artifact itself.
Have said that, of course, there are examples of interesting exceptions, and I think in the future, authors and publishers of all kinds of literature will put more conscious thought into how a digital instantiation of a given work could be distinct from its print cousin (and that the reverse is also true — in fact the process of turning a piece of electronic literature into a work of print literature is equally interesting).
On the corporate side of things, I’m not particularly concerned with the confusion of terms. The ebooks / eliterature distinction issue has been around for at least a decade. Over the course of that time, both ebooks and eliterature have grown in “market share” in their respective domains. And while the corporate takeover of electronic literature is certainly interesting to contemplate, it`s really an abstraction at this point — someone would first need to figure out how to market this kind of work to the type of mass audience corporations are actually interested in.
Leave a comment.