I also really like when she mentions Philippe Bootz and his essay. His idea of examining digital literature in various levels is absolutely genius! I believe that examining a piece by dissecting it's many levels is a wonderful way of analyzing a work to the fullest and in doing so, discovering the true creative essence of the piece.
I also agree with Francisco Ricardo when he points out that electronic literature is "fundamentally different from and more complex than a material or printed work" because in my opinion, electronic literature seems to be more in depth than any printed work. There's so many elements that go into it and you have to really analyze it before you realize how much work truly went into a piece -- how much creative genius went into a piece, that is.
And lastly I felt that Cayley had a good argument when he mentioned that, "Because language has been constrained to the mind, the voice and laterally to the “surface of the leaf,” we have internalized its being-in-all-possible-worlds as such. When it appears in “new media” we are re-sensitized to the experience of its never-having-belonged-here." I couldn't agree more! This explains why electronic literature has frustrated all of us as readers. It seems that we are so accustomed to language being constant, then when it changes, we grow discombobulated and confused. That being said, it's hard for us to adjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment