Jackson/Hypertext Blog

Hypertext uses a different way of presenting a narrative than we are all used to. In hypertext, instead of reading the narrative in the exact order that the author or the editor constructed it, people who read hypertext can ‘follow their own path” or create their own sort of order to get meaning out of the narrative. In the words of Steve Ersinghaus “Navigating a nonlinear narrative such as hypertext, demonstrates how electronic literature challenges expectations associated with and codified around print based reading practices.” Hypertexts are more thought of as being networks rather than a linear plot. In other words, “Hypertext changes our interaction with both the story at hand and also with the concept of narrative itself.”(Ersinghaus p.1)

The piece of hypertext fiction we were introduced to in the class was Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl. I found this to be a very interesting piece of hypertext fiction. The whole weirdness of the narrative was quite captivating and really catches the reader’s attention. Shelly Jackson is the author of Patchwork Girl but is not the only creator of the piece.  This narrative actually contains 5 creators. The first is obviously Shelly Jackson, and the other four are patchwork girl herself, Mary Shelly, the sources of patchwork girls’ body parts and the reader. The choices that you click, and how you interpret it makes the story become a whole. The Base of patchwork girl is all about creation. Even piecing together the hypertext gives you this sense of creating something. Throughout the story you hear about sowing different body parts together to bring this monster together and bring it to life.

Patchwork Girl expresses the narrative by showing illustrations and pictures of women’s body parts that are stitched together through the hypertext and the images in the narrative. There are five different sections in the narrative. They are titled as follows “a Graveyard, a quilt, a story, and broken accents.” Each segment takes the story into different directions through different links and different images. In the story, the female monster is created by Mary Shelley. The narrative explains the different adventures the monster went on in America after she dies after a 175 year life span. The different sections in the narrative give you insight on the different lives of the women that contributed to the body parts of Mary Shelly’s monster. Patchwork girl is composed of different people and each lexia is like a scrap of fabric. You have to piece the work together to get a meaning out of the story. This is what makes you get so intrigued and caught up in the narrative Patchwork Girl.

Another piece of Hypertext that we analyzed as a class included the narrative “my body-- a wundermaker”. This piece was written by Shelley Jackson as well. I found this piece to have many similarities to Jackson’s Patchwork Girl. As you click on the different body parts you are linked to different stories and how they interact with the different body parts of the girl. Just like in Patchwork Girl, the girl in this narrative was very intrigued by her body and how it was different from everybody else’s bodies.

Both patchwork girl and the girl from a—wundermaker, have sort of a love/ hate relationship when it comes to their bodies. In a- wundermaker there is a greater emphasis on her childhood making it easier for us to relate to the story and gets the reader more invested. In both Patchwork Girl and a- wundermaker their bodies are being viewed as being monstrous.  

In Patchwork Girl, patchwork girl herself goes on to explain how she is tall and broad shouldered enough to be a man. With her large adams apple people view her as being a transsexual. This is another example of how there is a sort of feminist perspective on the narrative.

Both narratives have different varieties of routes through their work as well making the story jump from one point to the next forcing you to have to piece everything together to make the story make sense. In form a- wundermaker, and in patchwork girl they have multiple pages with multiple links to make a web of possibilities. There is a thematic connection for all lexia as well. This gives you different perspectives with different aspects of the story.

Some basic characteristics of the two hypertexts Patchwork Girl, and a- wundermaker include the following: Both stories link to multiple pages which lead to several paths that have numerous links on a page, and both of the narratives have thematic connection for the lexia giving us different perspectives and different aspects of the story. All of this together gives us a web of possibilities to explore in the narrative.

I have not gotten very far in writing my own hypertext fiction, but as far as I have gotten I found it to be very difficult. Working on your own personal hypertext gives you a new found respect for authors like Shelley Jackson and really makes you admire the creativeness authors like her have. To write hypertext you really have to have a sense of imagination to be able to write your piece and have it all tie together to come up with some sort of narrative that makes sense. It is very easy to get confused with all the different links you have to make and can really disrupt your main ideas in the narrative you are trying to create.

Jackson, Shelley. Patchwork Girl. Watertown, MA: Eastgate Systems, 1995. CD-Rom

Ersinghaus, Steve.Reading Hypertext: Reading Blue Hyacinth

Interactive Fiction

Dealing with interactive fiction was a very intriguing experience for me. Interacting with IF was almost like playing a video game and I found it to be quite captivating. To be able to interact efficiently with an IF piece gives you a good sense of exhilaration and accomplishment. To give you a basic definition of interactive fiction I will refer to Dennis G. Jerz’s reading on What Is Interactive Fiction. Jerz explains that  “ Interactive fiction (IF) is computer-mediated narrative, resembling a fine-grained "Choose Your Own Adventure" story, in which the reader helps to determine the outcome of the story.”  “The usual IF interface is a command based textual feedback loop” or the computer puts a few lines or paragraphs of text on display and the interactor (you) types a command; and the computer tells you what happened in the story, and then leaves you with a spot on the screen to continue your input to what you have just seen.

In my first experience with IF I interacted with an IF piece called Galatea.  During the beginning of this experience I struggled greatly with it and really wanted to just give up on the piece all together. If you do not put in the correct input the software will not recognize what you are trying to say and you will not be able to advance in the plot of your story in your IF. This could get very frustrating and can happen quite often if you do not read up on the proper text you should input in the IF. So the best thing you can do is type the text “help” into the computer and the game will give you a basic description of the verbs you should be typing in to help you progress in the plot of the game. Galatea was a very interesting piece of IF in the way that you had to be very careful about what you say to her to further the conversation. gg

As you can see the software does not always recognize what you are trying to say and you need to be very specific in IF to get the response you want in order to further your conversation or continue with the plot of the story. I personally did not get very far with this piece of IF. The basic Idea of this piece was to converse with Galatea long enough for her to give some sort of emotional response or for something interesting to happen. If you continue to not ask the right questions, or you ask too many questions she will stop talking to you and the IF will end. Apparently I was not saying the correct things to her because the game would end pretty abruptly when I played and the conclusion of the story did not end with her opening up to me in any way.

I have a new respect for people that write IF after I attempted to make one myself. You do not realize how challenging it is to make IF until you sit down and try to create your own. Personally, I found writing IF to be quite horrible. The process of mapping your piece out and coming up with your plot is not the problem. I actually found that coming up with ideas for your IF is actually entertaining and gives you the opportunity to be extremely creative.

For my IF I had the idea to map out a night club where you go through the process of conning the bouncer to let you in (since you’re not on the list) interact with different girls in the club, and finally bring one back to your house. Planning the IF out was actually quite fun until reality set in and you actually had to write it out with the program inform 7. It turns out that using this program to create your IF is very complex and really does want to make you throw your computer out the window. The program requires you to be very specific and you really can’t make any mistakes or your entire IF will cease to work.

I think that the software was so hard to use that if I continued to work on the piece many aspects of my original idea of my IF would change. I would have to adapt to the software and I believe that would take a lot of the creativity out of the IF. But this is coming from someone who is not use to using the software and not educated enough on it to be able to use it without any problems. I’m sure if you are familiar with it the amount of creativity you can put in an IF is extraordinary. An IF gives you the chance to get your reader; or in this case your player to interact with the story in a way you can’t when it’s just written on paper. IF almost makes you feel as if you are actually in the story because of the amount of interaction that has to be put into it. But what I did not realize about IF was all the work that has to be put into making it. An incredible amount of thought has to be put into it and I believe it takes a truly intelligent person to be able to create a full IF.

When it comes to creating an IF or just writing fiction on paper, I would be more inspired to just write it out. Personally I think I would be a better overall writer or creator of a work of fiction if it was not in the form of an IF. After working on my own IF for a couple of weeks I realized how difficult and in depth the process is and I don’t think I have it in me to write one. I would get too frustrated to be able to accomplish anything. I think that people that have the patience to work on IF are doing a great thing for literature but it’s just not for me.  IF does a great job with capturing the reader or player and makes it easy to get interested in it, but nothing can compare to reading a truly good fictional book. Nothing is more captivating than reading a book that was written by a truly good author. And I’m sure it is the same way with IF but I don’t think that it could ever compare.

Electronic poetry

     Reading and analyzing electronic poetry ended up being a lot more exciting than I thought it would be. Watching a piece of electronic poetry gives so much more to the poem than just reading regular poetry. The "playability" in a electronic poem is what makes the poem so much more fun and grasping. " Like a musician playing an instrument, a user could be said to play an application". Playing around with the poem clicking on different things linking you to different images really makes the poem a lot more grasping and interesting. The poem I enjoyed the most was the best cigarette. I really liked this e poem because I used to smoke cigarettes and the imagery used in the poem really seemed to intrigue me more than just seeing the text. 
    Another poem I looked at on my own was called stir text. I found this poem to be a little confusing but i think that may have been the point. What I noticed while reading electronic poetry is that not all of the poems are clear cut. Like in stir text as you move the cursor the words jumble up and change as well. While looking at the text change the words come together and give you different meanings. I think it's kind of cool how this poem gets you thinking and makes you explore the whole depth of the poem.
  I am very impressed on how these e poets make their poems. As i have been working on my own e poem i have noticed how time consuming making these poems really are. The work that I have seen done in class like firefly, the last cigarette, and fidget go so in depth when it comes to coming up with the imagery and the sound that makes these poems so dynamic.