For our fourth writing project, I decided to analyze Storyland, a supposed piece of electronic literature, from the electronic archives. Storyland is a program with a collection of sentences, which through a computer formula, are randomly compiled into short stories. When you first approach the page, you are greeted with circus music and flashing and colorful letters that spell out Storyland.
I do not think that Storyland can be considered a legitimate piece of literature. It is not effective. When you read the “stories” they are disjointed and the sentences do not compile into a cohesive piece of literature. Also, the author is not involved in making the final product. These stories are completely computer produced. I believe that literature is the work of an author, a person, who wants to tell a story. Sure, you could argue that Storyland produces story, but think again, shouldn’t stories make sense? They are not stories if there is no plot, no climax, and no end. In addition, the stories that Storyland produces are fleeting; once the page is refreshed, the story is lost and the chances of it being reproduced are slim.
For every argument there is opposition. You may be thinking that the randomness of it all seems more entertaining and engaging than a normal book. Well Hayles, author of Writing Machines, would agree with you; she believes literature should be entertaining and fun. You are not wrong, I, too, think reading should be entertaining, but not in the form of a game. Literature is engaging because of the imaginative world that you can create from reading it, not the superficial sounds and flashes that cover up the actual story. You could also take a more technical argument and say that technically the program is producing stories, short narratives, whether they make sense or not. But exactly how effective are these confusing and disjointed stories? In my mind, not very. There is no point reading a story that does not and will not make sense. Lastly, you could argue that this form of stories promotes imagination and creativity because it is forcing you to think and figure out the story. A legitimate statement, but given that each story is only seven sentences long, it makes the possibility for a deep and meaningful creative experience impossible.
I agree with Birkerts when he argues that technology is moving too fast and that society has become obsessed with technological advancements and forgetting about the treasures of the past. In the Gutenberg Elegies, Birkerts argued that technology has “a modification of the relation between the writer and the language” (157). Such an increase in technology has completely removed the author from the literature. All the language now is abbreviated and in code to cater to the computer.
One passage that I really thought epitomized my argument was from Birkert’s conclusion:
“The disinclination I feel about the digital future is stronger, more certain, but the fear grows from the same root. I see the situation in Faustian terms, as an either/or. 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” (213).
So why does this matter? We are losing our sense of literature and learning. We have become so engrossed in computers and electronics that we have lost the ability to read and research in a book. We are asked to go to the library for a book and we see it as such an inconvenience, not just because we actually have to get off the couch and drive there, but because it is such a hassle to go find a book on a shelf.
a key principle from birkerts to consider would be his focus on the author, and the views that the authority of a book is lost in electronic/hypertext format.
your earlier reference to Hayles as believing literature should be entertaining needs some clarifying–would need a quotation to justify that, make sure you aren’t generalizing.
your point about the shortness of the story vs the need for deep and meaningful reading is a strong point–would be a good counter-argument to focus on and spend more time with.