Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Notes and Quotes: Saemmer on page 163

Notes and Quotes
Alexandra Saemmer (beginning on page 163)

The Dreamlife of Letters: http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/stefans__the_dreamlife_of_letters/the_dream_life_cleaned.html

Digital literature is continuously changing, gradually discovering its specific potential (163).

Texts are regarded as paintings and paintings can be read (163).

French critics refer to pre-hypertextual structures that seem to suggest hypertextual adaptations (163).

“Everything happens as if, with multimedia, literature had finally found the technical devices it suggested and required long before” (163).
                          Not sure I agree with this, but it’s very poetic and thought-provoking.

“Nouveau roman,” first paragraph on page 164. Can we discuss this in class?

The first electronic text generators nevertheless seem tightly linked to the rules that human beings impose on them (165).

The “virtual” unpredictable dimension in electronic texts (165).
                          We have a lot of this going on being unable to access works.

The operation of digital literature on computer screens is always conditioned by the “intentionality of the computer” (165).

Now that digital literature seems more and more aesthetically convincing, the time has come to define its stylistic features with more precision (165).
                          Main purpose of essay?

It is not the clicking gesture that transforms interaction into a figure. It is the relationship between the gesture, the media content, and the media content appearing after the gesture (166).

The style of digital literature is partly based on a discrepancy between the reader’s expectations and the realized events on the screen (166).
                          Possibly one reason why they all seem to avoid the narrative arc? Would a narrative arc remove a piece of work from the category of digital literature?

Two distinct “aesthetics of frustration”:  the resistance of the work against the readers’ habits/expectations and any bugs in the system being used (167).

Retroprojection—the term proposed to characterize the space metaphors described on the end of page 167 to the beginning of page 168.

The semiotic approach has helped to refine the concept of incongruity essential in the definition of a figure (168).

One of the most conventional relationships between a hyperlinked word, a manipulation gesture and an activated content consists in providing an explanation of the word (169).

The repetitive use of hypertext links creates the illusion of a recaptured past in Explication de texte (170).

In The Subnetwork, neantisms and incubations contribute to building a complex metaphor, suggesting similarities between memory and digital network (171).

Multiplication of pop-up windows on the screen can be considered allotropic (172).

Media figures vs. a-media figures—top of page 173.

The Dreamlife of Letters: Edward Picot does not consider it as an avant-garde work. James Mitchell argues that the methods of traditional literary analysis would not be effective to interpret this poem. Marjorie Perloff says it should be considered as lettrist. Philippe Bootz says it refers to kinetic poetry. Lori Emerson thinks the reader plays, above all, a passive roll. N. Katherine Hayles asserts the morphemes and phonemes of this poem are charged with “eroticized graphic imagination” (173).

Kinetic allegories should not be confused with moveie-grams (177).

The interactions of all these figures of animation constitute a kinetic allegory (177).

Saemmer defends the existence of kinaesthetic rhymes in The Dreamlife of Letters (177).

The voice of digital media poetry seems decidedly closer to the surrealist experiences than to concrete or Lettrist experimentations (178).

No comments:

Post a Comment