What Are We Asking For?
Do we need writing groups in every city? Reading groups in every bookstore?
Probably not. As much--if not all--of the electronic
writing is online and as we are developing more online communities, strengthening
and growing online communities for writing may be our best bet. Yet as we have
seen in conferences and writing workshops, gatherings in person infuse a
valuable synergy and energy and excitement into electronic writing.
But right now, electronic literature and hypertext
conferences draw mere hundreds and new
media writing groups mere dozens, rather than the hundreds of thousands that
throng to linear writing groups and conferences. To populate these communities both in person and online,
we need more writers--a diverse level of discourse--from poets on the street
corner to poets in the university. We need more readers--from readers in the
grocery aisles to critical close readings in hypertext conference proceedings.
Yet hypertext/electronic literature/new media literature demands more from
its writers than linear writing. Writers have to think of the myriad ways a story can
be read and navigate through ever increasing loads of complex connections,
moods and possibilities. As computing possibilities and tools trickle down to
writers, new media writers are taking on ever more technological "aspects
from imagery, sound, and navigation".
Mark Bernstein points out [1] that
"Poets think nothing of expecting people to learn medieval Italian for the
sake of Dante, but learning a smidgeon of programming is often regarded as an apalling imposition." While "serious" poets
may expect others to learn medieval Italian to truly appreciate Dante, reading
Dante in the original is a serious time commitment--it is asking people to
devote years of their lives to the study. Likewise, learning programming requires serious time commitments that many writers (of poetry, novels,
hypertexts, etc.) are not willing to make.
While new media may not be asking for readers to commit years of their
lives for a single work, new media writing demands more from its readers. Readers can't sit back and be told the story--they have to work at
finding links and associations and actively explore the text. Readers have to
spend time with the works. Skimming isn't really possible when readings depend
on piecing the puzzle together. Works like Claire Dinsmore's
The Dazzle as Question, Laura Sullivan's beautopia, Meikal And's Seedsigns for Philadelpho are presented in time--the writer controls the time frame and space of the
reading, and readers need to put in the time needed to view the works. You
can't hurry works like these, any more than you can hurry through the labyrinth
of Diana Slattery's Glide or explorations into The Unknown or the intrigues and
innuendos of Bill Bly's We Descend.
But let us not make hypertext writing and reading any more difficult than
it has to be. Writing only deliberately inaccessible works and gleefully
smiling when someone doesn't find the right
door in will further constrict this community.
Rather, let us concentrate on making works accessible to a wider variety of
readers. One of the major beauties of new media works is that they can convey
meaning on a range of levels: writers can program in a "default path"
so that someone who hits return can have a good time with the work, and someone
who goes
beyond can find even more treasures.
Asking readers to commit to Dante before they've learned to reap the
rewards of language and cadences, of love and loss, of morality and political
commentaries in smaller doses is absurd. Most first graders are not taught to
love and understand Dante before being taught their abcs. Nor do many book club readers discuss the
contextual politics in 14th century Italy. Not only is it too big a first step,
it is unreasonable to expect that many people will ever reach that far in their
literary journeys. If linear work communities shunned the vast numbers of
readers and writers who have not committed to learning 14th century Italian to
embrace Dante, there would be very few people willing to read and discuss
mainstream work.
No one expects a wide grassroots community of mainstream readers to focus
on Dante, nor are there many bets that Dante in the original Italian will
become the next hot best seller. Yet in a sense, this is what we expect for new
media. New media and hypertext critics and writers wonder why readers and
writers are slow in forming communities needed to new forms, to ensure its place in the wide rivers of literature and art. (As Mark
Bernstein asks in his Hypertext 90 and 99 keynote addresses: Where are the Hypertexts?). We are
demanding Dante readers in a world of romance and mystery novels--and we aren't
championing or promoting the intermediate works that would lead readers to the Dantes of the new media world.
Exclusively catering to audiences that already know and love non-linear
work will land new media writing in an academic ghetto of experimentation. We
cannot hide behind the notion that hypertext is experimental and therefore
should always be on the edge, always be difficult to grasp. There is a place
for Talan Memmott's Lexia to Perplexia--a complex journey of theory. There is also a place for Marjorie Luesebrink's Fibbonacci's Daughter--a tale set in a mall, or Disappearing Rain--a mystery on the Internet. Both of these combine elements of structure,
imagery and poetry with an accessible story.
Not all popular literature needs a hypertext or new media counterpart. But
lots of popular literary formats could stand some "experimentation"--what
would happen if a romance novel let you see the secret connections between
characters? Already television shows have Web sites with links and images to
fill in the back story. Intertwined soap operas like The Company Therapist are gaining
popularity on the Web. Let's move out of the academic ghetto and explore other places in the community of literature. Let's see where
the insights we've gained from theory works can spill over into other forms of
writing.
Notes
[1] This has been a rallying call, and I admit
to taking it slightly out of context. The interview quote is from:
Tosca, Susana (1999) "Interview with Mark Bernstein, Eastgate’s Chief Scientist: Between art and science". Hipertulia
http://www.ucm.es/info/especulo/hipertul/interview.htm
Bernstein has stated this on other occasions. "No software package is
as difficult as Dante" is a quote from Bernstein’s ELO notes on his weblog from April 9, 2002. I agree with part of this—software is not the challenge that many make it
out to be, and to realize artistic visions, writers
need to learn programming, software and other tools. But I disagree with the
implied notion that this is a requirement for creating electronic works.
http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v03/i03/Larsen/readers.html