Blog appeal?

I think what was most beneficial for me from tonight’s class was our discussion about how things other than books/traditional literature have to be judged differently.  For example, Mark Amerika’s Filmtext.  I think it is difficult for us to “read” something and not treat it as literature, or as an attempt to be literary.  We have to be willing to experience new media and judge it by different standards than we judge works of literature.  Many of us are were uncomfortable with Flimtext but I think that is mostly due to the fact that we were experiencing it for the first time and it is very different from what we are used to.  I think we are sometimes too quick to judge something because we are not willing to try something new.  Things need to evolve and expand.  If they didn’t, we would all still be playing Mario Bros. on the orginal Nintendo of the 80’s.  I don’t think any of us are turning our noses up at Guitar Hero because it’s not as good as the original. 

We do not all need to be in love with Mark Amerika, but the point is that we need to give Filmtext, and other experimental works, a chance.  If not, we may miss out on some beneficial works.  Many of us criticize the canon and its exclusivity but sometimes it seems like we have made traditional books a canon in themselves.  If we do not accept other forms of new media, we are excluding them and implying that they are not good enough to fit into the “canon” of traditional books. 

I think if I had somehow stumbled upon Filmtext and did not know what it was (and had not been forced to check it out for class), I maybe would have explored it a little and I think I would have felt differently about it.  I might have liked it more and not been so critical of it because I would not have tried to read it as some sort of literature, like I did.  This is why it’s important not to impose our expectations of what we are used to onto something completely different.  If we try to read Filmtext as imitating literature, then we think it fails.  If we read it as something in itself, then perhaps we think it is successful. 

It seems like we are so ready and willing to accept other changes regarding technology, but not when it comes to books/literature.  I don’t think any of us were terribly upset when we had to ditch our cassette tapes and VHS tapes for CD’s and DVD’s.  Some changes are for the better.  If we give new media a fair chance, then hopefully we’ll be able to see the benefits of that, too.   

I just finished checking out Mark Amerika’s…websites, I guess.  I can’t say it was an enjoyable experience.  But I’m not sure how we’re supposed to react to it.  In Murray’s article “Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace,” she states: “Immersion can entail a mere flooding of the mind with sensation, the overflow of sensory stimulation” (99).  Well I definitely didn’t experience that with the Amerika sites.  She is referring, though, to the type of VR we have been discussing; one in which you enter another world/environment and have some sort of control of what happens within the VR space.  The Amerika sites were not necessarily intended for that. 

In her article, “Hot Spots, Avatars, and Narrative Fields Forever.  Bunel’s Legacy for New Digital Media and Interactive Database Narrative,” Kinder discusses ”interactivity” and states: “While all narratives are in some sense interactive in that their meanings always grow out of a collaboration between the idiosyncratic subjectives of authors and audiences and the reading conventions of the respective cultures they inhabit and languages they speak, all interactivity is also an illusion because the rules established by the designers of the text necessarily limit the user’s options” (4).  We discussed this in class last week and saw how readers are indeed limited.  Julie brought up the adventure books in which you can choose different endings.  Clearly, though, we can only choose from the endings that the author offers us, and we cannot create out own.  In Amerika’s Grammatron, there was a narrative but it was nearly impossible to follow.  While trying to read one paragraph, there were at least four or five links that you needed to click on to get to the rest, but when you clicked on a link, it presented you with even more links.  I was able to choose which links I wanted to click on, but I didn’t know which ones were essential.  Also, in my choosing different links, it was impossible to know what I had alreay read or where I had left off.  It was infuriating and I felt like I lost completel control of it.  I didn’t feel as though I was interacting with it at all.  I felt like it wanted to keep me from interaction.  

In Amerika’s Filmtext I had a similar, but not as bad, experience.  Although I didn’t feel there was a narrative I should follow, I felt extremely disconnected from it.  Even though, on one page, the text asked a series of questions that were addressed to “you” (me), I didn’t really feel involved.  Maybe that’s the point.  I have no idea.

I know experience is learning, but I think almost everything Kinder had to say was lost in the way it was presented.  Unfortunately, I’ve come away from it not really knowing what the point was, or what he was trying to do.  Maybe that’s my fault.  Or maybe it’s an indication that “traditional” books and writing are still the most effective/sucessful way of learning, as Stephenson seems to think. 

I guess I’m still thinking about the question Kim asked at the end of class last night; what is Stephenson saying about “the book?”  Although the Primer was not what we think of as a traditional book, I still think he was using it as representative of books and literature.  I think he is trying to show the importance of teaching literature, even in a future world comletely based on technology. 

I think Beth made an important observation when she pointed out that the Primer was not just a book; meaning it was not limited to just being read.  It could be listened to and watched.  This may show how books and literature have to adapt, as Fitzpatrick discussed in her article.  Books have already been altered in these way; there are books on tape and many books are turned into movies.  What is important, though, is that people still read the book.  Take Harry Potter for example.  Although there are many people who have seen the movies but not read the books, there are MANY more people who have read the books, and probably saw the movies as well. 

I think what is most important is the experience of reading.  Even in “normal” books, we can interatct with them and they spark our imagination, although not to the extent the Primer did.  I liked Kim’s suggestion that the Primer suggests there are untapped potentials for the book.  Maybe in the future books really will be like the Primer. 

If Stevenson is suggesting the importance of literature and reading, though, I’m left with the same question I had in class.  Will reading/literature only truly be beneficial to some of us, like Nell?  Are we all either Elizabeth, Fiona, or Nell?  Is the ability to truly understand literature and apply what it teaches us to real life?  Or is that a lesson we must also learn from becoming immersed in it?  Is it our resonsibility to become intelligent based on what we learn from books, or is it the responsibility of books to teach us how to be intelligent? 

I think Stevenson is definitely trying to say that it is important, if not crucial, to continue using books to teach children, but is he content with the books of today or does he too imagine the Primer as the ideal?  The Primer differed the most from regular books because of the human (Miranda) on the other end.  Human contact/emotion is not something we cannot get from our books but it was this that was also part of what made the Primer so successful with Nell.  So will books have to change in that sense to be successful in the future?  I don’t know…this post has been mostly questions but I guess that just  shows I’m still left with many questions about The Diamond Age.

In class last week I remember Kim telling us that some critics say the first part of The Diamond Age seems like it’s just the set-up for the second part.  After completing the novel, it does definitely feel that way.  I was really excited when I started the second part because I thought it was much easier to follow and more interesting than the first part.  BUT…then the second part seemed to just spin completely out of control.  I got a little lost at times and had to go back and reread.  It just seemed like too much was happening too fast.  For some reason, the ending seemed kind of forced.  Maybe because of the speed at which everything happened…I don’t know.  Even though the ending was untraditional content-wise, I thought it was a little corny. 

I think the ending, though, is what saved the book for me, too.  Since the book was untraditional in its story and in format, the ending still “played be the rules.”  Mostly everything seemed to tie together and be wrapped-up, to a certain extent.  The blurring of reality and non-reality became almost indistinguishable in the end, but that didn’t really to matter that much.  Since everything else fell into place and all the characters tied together, that seemed to be what we, as readers, wanted most. 

I’m left wondering what the Primer was representative of.  In class last week Allison pointed out how an ideal education consisted of the Primer as well as a formal education.  I was hoping that Nell would be able to prove that wrong; that the Primer would some how turn out to teach her everything and that she did not need school.  I don’t know why I hoped that- I guess probably because I didn’t think she would have the opportunity to go to school.  But, alas, she did go.  It seems, though, that most of the stuff she needed to know later in life, she did learn from the Primer.  What, then, is Stephenson implying about the education system?  Does it not offer enough “real life” education that people need in their everday lives?  Does it not offer enough creative freedom or room for the imagination?  Or maybe he’s just advocating for the importance of teaching literature?  Reading even just a “regular” book (meaning, not the Primer) allows kids to exercise their imaginations.  Nell does not physically write in the Primer, but she does come up with ideas and tells the Primer what to do.  Thus, writing and storytelling is an important aspect of education too.  Or maybe this is just a fellow book-nerd’s wishful thinking…. 

In the chapter “Virtual Reality as Dream and as Technology,” Marie-Laure Ryan discusses the expectations of virtual reality (VR) and the differrent types/forms of VR.  The term virtual reality was coined by Jaron Lanier (musician, visual artist, developer) in the 1990s.  Lanier anticipated VR becoming a huge part of people’s lives and being “real rather than virtual” (49).  Although VR has not become this dominant in our lives, it has made much progress.  Ryan goes on to discuss VR from the viewpoints of dreamers, developers, and philosophers.

Dreams of VR, and Some Realities

Ryan claims that the ultimate form of VR was seen in the Holodeck from Star Trek.  The Holodeck is appealing because of how realistic it is.  When entering the Holodeck, it is just like entering another reality, rather than a non-reality.  In the Holodeck, there is an environment complete with ”humanoids” which you can interact with.  When VR did not offer opportunities such as the Holodeck in real life, people were disappointed.  Lanier explains: “I always talked about virtual reality in its ultimate implementation and when that didn’t happen, interest declined.  Because everyone wanted the Holodeck…virtual reality couldn’t fulfill its promises so quickly” (51).  Ryan describes the Holodeck (and VR in general) in eight stages:

1. You enter.  (Active embodiment- this requires the participation of the body.  You are contolling the movements within the VR space with your actual body, even if it is only through data gloves of wired bodysuit.  An example of this is nintendo Wii.  Rather than just sitting in front of the TV and playing regular nintendo with a controller, Wii requires the player to stand up and use their body to physically play the games.)

2. into a picture (Spatiality of the display-this means that the space you enter fully surrounds you.  It has to have a 360-degree panoramic view point and is three-dimensional.  Wii does not fulfill these requirements.  The space the player is in is still confined in the television set.  If the player turns their head away from the TV, they are immediately taken out of the VR space and put back into their real surroundings.) 

3. that represents a complete environment. (Sensory diversity-VR has limited ability to appeal to all senses, especially touch.  One example of this (hopefully!) is in the movie Demolition Man when they do not physically have sex, but, instead, have virtual sex.

http://www.youtube.com/v/BD3ulOglkcI&hl=en

4. Though the world of the picture is the product of a digital code, you cannot see the computer. (Transparency of the medium- This means the erasure of the medium.  Ryan discusses this mostly in terms of the computer.  To relate this to The Diamond Age, Nell becomes absorbed in the story of Princess Nell in the Primer but she cannot become fully immersed because the medium (the Primer/book) does not become invisible.)

5. you can manipulate the objects of the virtual world and interact with its inhabitants just as you would in the real world (dream of a natural language)

6. You become a character in the virtual world (alternative embodiment and role-playing-This is seen most obviously in Nell acting as Princess Nell in the Primer.  When Princess Nell faces dilemmas, Nell has to try out different solutions to solve the problem.)

7. Out of your interaction with the virtual world arises a story (simulation as narrative-This, again, is seen in the story of Princess Nell.  However, Ryan states that VR is “not supposed to re-present what is but to explore what could be” (63).  This is not necessarily true of the Primer.  Even though the story of Princess Nell is a fantasy, it still directly relates to Nell’s life.)

8. Enacting this plot is a relaxing and pleasurable activity (VR as a form of art-By being able to immerse in VR, this gives an outlet for creative self-expression combined with computers.  As discussed earlier, Nell is able to decide the outcome of Princess Nell’s story, to a certain extent.) 

 PRESENCE, IMMERSION, AND INTERACTIVITY

In this section, Ryan describes the importance of presence and immersion in the VR world.  She also insists that the two terms have similar descriptions: ”immersion insists on being inside a mass substance, presense on being in front of a well-delineated entity.  Immersion thus describes the world as a living space and sustaining environment for the embodied subject while presence confronts the perceiving subject with individual objects.  But we could not feel immersed ina world without a sense of the presence of the objects that furnish it, and the objects could not be present to us if they weren’t part of the same space as our bodies” (68).

 THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF THE VR EXPERIENCE

Ryan discusses how VR world’s are more real when you have control of what happens in the VR world.  “In the virtual envorinment…the body stands at the center of the world, and the world irradiates from it” (72).  This also gives the experience a sense of continuity.  The VR environment responds to the body and can be controlled by what it receives from the participant.

I really don’t have any idea what I want to write my final paper on.  I guess since the beginning of the semester, I’ve been concerned with on-line writing (I know that’s broad, bear with me).  What concerns me the most is how unreliable on line writing seems.  Now when I say on line writing, I’m not exactly sure what I’m specifically referring to.  I guess when it comes to on line magazines, books, etc., it seems like it is so easy for them to be altered/edited.  If this is the  case, how will we know what the author really wrote?  I guess I’m also conflicted on how I feel about the freedom of publication on line.  With on line writing, anybody and everybody can write something and “publish” it on line.  How, then, do we distinguish the good from the bad?  I know it can easily be argued that we have to do that even with “real” tangible books, but that seems easier.  I think maybe all of this leads back to our original discussion about what will happen to “real” books when they have to compete with on line writing; and that’s a question I don’t know if I want to try to tackle.

Even though we haven’t talked about this too much in class, I’m also interested in the fact that students are using IMing or texting abbreviations/language in their school papers.  It’s as though they do not realize that this is not the correct way to write.  The tech. language becomes “real” for them, while traditional/proper English seems like it’s becoming obsolete.  We see this a little bit in The Diamond Age when they say how letters are used in place of words, like the MC.  As cell phones and computers continue to take over the world, I can only see this problem getting worse.  Will it get to the point where everyone will have to be fluent in text message language because it will become so dominant?  Ok, that’s probably extreme…but who knows.

What surprises me most so far in The Diamond Age is how the charactes turn their bodies into objects of technology.  Bud is the most obvious example of this.  He has a skull gun implanted in his forehead and has ’sites running through his muscles.  He is not naturally working his muscles and exercising his body; he is allowing the sites to make his muscles bigger.  “‘Hut,’ he said.  He said it under his breath, through unmoving lips, but the gun heard it; he felt a slight recoil tapping his head back, and a startling POP sounded from the mannikin, accompanied by a flahs of light on the wall up above its head.  Bud’s headace deepened, but he didn’t care” (6).  Having the skull gun in his forehead makes his body a weapon in itself; he is never unarmed.  It does not require and physical effort, either.  All he has to do is whisper what he wants the gun to do, and it does it.  It acts as another body part that follows his commands and he has complete control over. 

In Marie-Laure Ryan’s article, “The Two (and Thousand) Faces of the Virtual,” she claims there is “a cultural fascination with the hyperreal, a copy more real than the real that destroys the desire for the original” (32).  Although she is discussing the idea of virtual reality, I think this can be applied to Bud, too.  Bud seems to be the hyperreal.  What he has done to his body is so far from reality, but in the text is has become the reality.  Since nobody in the novel questions the transformations characters make to their bodies, they become the real or the norm.  They become “more real than the real.”  Also, they do destroy the desire for the original because the original is no longer good enough.  If Bud has the power to protect himself and to take advantage of other people because of his skull gun, then why wouldn’t everyone want a skull gun?  

Miranda transforms herself because she wants to be a ractive.  So far, she seems to enjoy her new job as  a ractive.  If it is this easy to become when, then, again, what’s stopping everyone from becoming a ractive?  It seems like the farther one becomes from reality, the more real they become. 

People today are already pushing the limits with changing their bodes (piercings, tattooes, etc.)  I may be incorrect here, but wasn’t there a time when they were discussing making  those tracking chips that they put in dogs into children?  Even though that does not seem as extreme as what Bud and the other characters are undergoing, it still seems dangerously close to combining humanity and technology too much.  What should be more powerful; people or technology?  What is more powerful now?  Are we already ruled by technology?