#engl395

Thanks!

Would riderly be considered the type of text that fills the gap between writerly and readerly texts? I feel like there might be more that fills the gap, if only because sometimes readerly texts require more work from the other sources of information, rather than just whatever you’re writing yourself. Like if something provides you with a different prompt to write about each and it takes what you write and gives you a new prompt based on that, but is not actively a part of your writing process like Twitter was a part of the author’s, does it still count as riderly? Or is it something else?

I remember having read a lot of CYOA books when I was in elementary and middle school, mostly because I had run out of linear literature that I wanted to read. The fun and excitement of the text was still very much there when I was 'reading' Vampire Express, as well as the immersive idea of being a part of the story itself. The one thing I had forgotten about, but probably should have been something I predicted, was that I would have a difficult time making a decision about what to do. It took me ten minutes to decide if I wanted to check the baggage cart or ask the other passengers about Mrs. West, and even as I turned the page, I couldn't stop thinking 'is this the right decision?' I did enjoy the experience and the idea of having multiple possible endings and multiple possible choices that would affect those endings was exciting. I do, however, realised it's hard not to read the other pages you come across when you're flipping to the page you need to go to. At one point, I was thoroughly convinced I was going to die for my choice because I had flipped a couple pages too far and had seen the bolded The End at the end of one page. Thankfully, I didn't die, but it was still a little nerve wracking not to know off hand if attacking the vampire castle would lead to my demise.

Aarseth compares the differences between a reader of traditional literature and a reader of cybertext. His comparisons were pretty spot on, because it shows the differences between traditional literature and cybertext. He also talks about cybertext can be mistaken for something less useful by the critics, but makes a pretty great argument for it. On page 3, he says "cybertext is a machine for the production of variety of expression." This is an easy way to explain that cybertext is no less important and thought-provoking just because it does not fit traditoonal standards. I think his idea of helping people understand by giving them a chance to experience cybertext is also a really smart idea. The only problem then would be: how do we ensure that everyone who experiences cybertext is able to experience it in a way that makes it easy to understand as a concept?

Wysocki is ridiculously supportive of electronic literature as a medium and for that I appreciate her as a scholar. They address every concern scholars have had about electronic literature in the past. Wysocki does not approach it with an almost condescending tone, like often happens when someone is talking about a topic that they understand but, for some reason, others do not. It is nice, to say the least, to read about someone who has such passion about a topic and allows it to come through their writing. It makes the text a lot easier to read. I wonder where Wysocki sees electronic literature's future, considering everything done nowadays is typed. Do manuscripts count as electronic literature because they've been typed on an electronic interface? Or does the intent to have them printed still keep them out of that realm?

I really enjoyed Landow’s piece, mostly because it talked a lot about the different kinds of online texts and how they’re made. I’m not technologically savvy enough in order to make websites and understand all the computer code jargon, but I can appreciate a really good puzzle and I feel like that’s all computer coding really is: a really complicated puzzle. The piece itself talked a lot about the changes in the environment of the literature we have access to (or did at the time of Landow’s writing) and how it is constantly changing with the changes in new technology. I really love the ongoing discussion of the fact that electronic literature is just regular literature, but on a new interface that is more interactive and a little more complicated. It makes me wonder: what kind of new versions of literature are we going to get with new technology? Apple already has a 3D screen of sorts with their new iPhones; what happens next?

Those observations blew my mind because some of them were so intricate. It was so accurate as well, like cameraa not needing to be wet and being smaller than they were at the time. I liked how he never could have guessed the existence of digital photography however, because the mere idea of a digital way to store information wasn't even a concept they could imagine. What would our world today be like if the wars hadn't brought out the ideas of our best and brightest?

In the same vein, the preservation of the authenticity for electronic literature could be questioned, since the creator can usually edit their piece easily and without any kind of evidence, unless someone took the initiative to take a screen grab of the work before the edit. This could mess with the authenticity and accountability of a piece.