glossary of terms

The following list comprises the most important concepts we have dealt with this semester. This list, in alphabetical order, is meant as a study aid for the final exam, on Tuesday May 17.

* * * * *

Books. In one of the first articles we read in this class, “Bookscapes: Modeling Books in Electronic Space”  Matthew Kirschenbaum suggested that in its composition and use, the material book is much like a digital object in that books are multimedia, interactive, immersive, and function as databases. In this sense, books are digital objects. However it is important to note that the real importance of the book, in relation to digital objects, is that in the early stages (and to some extent still) the digital defined itself in opposition to the print book. In so doing, it remediated the book, rejecting some elements of print books (bound paper pages), and incorporating others (web pages, e-book). See my notes on books and the digital.

Canon. In terms of literature, a canon is a collection of works that have been singled out by critics and audiences as writing that has lasting artistic value. Though it often seems that the literary canon is something that has been established forever, in fact it is never written in stone. Any canon changes over time and space. That is, what is considered canonical at one point in time, and in one place, is different in other times and places. Another thing that is important about the literary canon is that it is as much about exclusion as inclusion. Until recently, women and people of color were not included in the English literary canon. Now they are, due to the diligent efforts of many critics and scholars, both women and men, caucasians and people of color. In fact, the last fifty years, particularly in literature departments, are informally known as the “canon wars” because of the sometimes fierce debate about who should be in the literary canon. For some literary critics, most of what we read this semester would not be considered canonical, just because it is electronic. The reason why the subject of the canon has been raised in this class is because we are now re-forming the literary canon to include digital works. Students are part of this process of canon formation. Particularly in a world in which social networking is so prevalent, the opinions of young people matter and help shape what future students will read in literature courses. Finally, it should be noted that, in the context of “fanon,” even fictional worlds have canons. That is, they have an agreed upon list of “official” writers and works, as well as a consensus of what is true in that universe, and what is not. See my notes on the canon.

Cyborg. A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a human-machine hybrid, a person with prosthetic extensions, which includes people with electronic pacemakers, artificial joints and/or limbs, drug implant systems, implanted corneal lenses, and artificial skin.” Some people, like Katherine Hayles and Jay Clayton, extend our understanding of the cyborg to include those who use computers to connect with other people, because that makes them part of what Hayles calls a “distributed cognitive environment.” There is also some evidence that our interaction with computers actually changes the “hardwiring” of our brains. The implications for the student of digital literature seem quite clear: if someone uses a machine to access, read, process, and store data in the form of digital literature, they are very much like cyborgs. In using computers, people develop cyborg subjectivity: they begin to see themselves as part machine. This is still a scary thought for some people, though it is increasingly acceptable as media technologies become more and more central to our lives in the 21st century. See my notes on digital subjectivity.

Database. A database is a structured collection of data organized for fast search and retrieval. It need not be digital; a print dictionary is a database. But the database is most often thought of as an electronic or digital collection of data, typically housed on a computer. In that most digital literary objects are also computer-related, and make use of databases, the database has become an important concept in any discussion of digital literature. More important is the means used to access the database, which we often do not see or even think about. In terms of computers, algorithms are used to interface the database. This is problematic in traditional literary works, particularly those that make use of narrative, because, in the words of Lev Manovich, “the database represents the world as a list of items, and it refuses to order this list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (events)” (225). Narrative might still be used to interface a work of digital literature, but it is only one algorithm among many; narrative is not the privileged interface in digital works. The use of databases in digital literature gives rise to a new literary genre: that of the archive. It also highlights the importance of navigation strategies in digital literature, offering multiple ways to interface the digital object, which ideally allows for optimal freedom for the reader without causing confusion. See my notes on the database.

Digital. Something is digital when it makes use of electronic communications technologies. More specifically, digital objects have these four major characteristics: they are multimedia, interactive, immersive, and function as databases. Digital objects are defined by these four characteristics to differing degrees. That is, not all digital objects as equally multimedia, interactive, immersive, or databases; some are more one (or two) than the others. See my notes on digital subjectivity.

Frankenstein. This text was important in this class mostly for its themes concerning science and technology, and, more pertinently, as the base text for a long line of remediations, leading up to the present day. In the class notes, I presented a list of these many remediations. You should look as well at the notes on Jay Clayton and William St. Clair.

Hypertext. This is one of the earliest forms of digital literature. A hypertext is an unstructured collection of shorter texts (lexias) linked to one another, and it is typically accessed randomly. This definition might actually allow print objects such as dictionaries to be considered hypertexts, but when we usually speak of hypertext, we mean a collection of texts in an electronic form, making use of digital technologies to present and access the text. In that the reader accesses hypertexts randomly, linear narratives become nearly impossible for the author to create, and for the reader to sustain. This radically changes the power dynamic between author and reader, making the reader a kind of “co-author.” Many hypertext authors embraced and celebrated this enhanced freedom for the reader. But since many of these early hypertext authors were working in the traditions of experimental literature and postmodern philosophy, this supposed “freedom” alloted to the reader was, in the end, less liberating than these authors intended, since the lack of one privileged narrative, and confusing navigational structures, left many readers frustrated. In this sense, it still favored the author over the reader, which was a characteristic of Web 1.0. In a Web 2.0 world, where web content can be customized, and where social networking is of primary importance, hypertext has lost much of its novelty and popularity. See the summaries of the course readings in my class notes that refer to hypertext (on George Landow and Stuart Moulthrop; Katherine Hayles, and Shelley Jackson, on Patchwork Girl).

Immersion. This a sense of being mentally planted in a virtual space. We project ourselves into a virtual world, and in so doing creating an out-of-body experience that allows us to re-create ourselves in a form that works within that world—or in a way we’ve always wanted to be perceived. Immersion and virtuality have always been part of the literary experience; indeed, even before there was such a thing as writing or literature, story-tellers (like Homer) used various techniques to involve the listeners in the virtual story-world they were describing. For the reader, imagination has always been a key faculty for creating a sense of immersion. Authors of digital works draw upon similar techniques, and also appeal to the imagination of readers, but have a lot more tools and effects at their disposal. They can use multimedia (images and sounds), interactivity, and particularly group engagement with the digital work to create a sense of immersion in a virtual world. See my notes on digital immersion.

Interactivity. The digital object offers the reader ways to interact with the text, such that they can almost be considered “co-authors” of the work in question, since through interaction they shape and change the work in significant ways. The earliest forms of digital literature made much of this potential interaction, particularly in the form of hypertext.  Though this has made early hypertexts problematic examples of digital literature, interaction has actually increased in newer digital literary works. This is mostly due to the fact that these newer works are being developed in a Web 2.0 environment, which is highly interactive and sociable, oriented towards meeting and relating to other people online, such as in social networking sites. See my notes on Nick Montfort’s “Interactive Fiction in Our Culture.”

Literature. As we have discovered in this class, literature, when it is moved to the digital realm, becomes a very different beast than literature located in print culture. For one thing, media is much more part of the equation with digital literature than with print literature. This is not because media is not a factor with print literature, but because we are so used to the way print media works that we no longer even think about it. As a result of digitization, literature has become protean, hard to pin down; it seems constantly to be in flux. It will probably be the “born digital” generation that defines the field of digital literature (that is, you!). In this course, the definition we have come to use is this:”Literature is writing that is read, considered by both critics and readers in general to have artistic value, and uses language in creative ways..” Digital literature, then, is defined as: “writing that is read, considered by both critics and readers in general to have artistic value, and uses language in creative ways. What makes it digital is that digital literature is written and read by utilizing electronic technologies.” And what distinguishes digital literature from digital culture in general, then, is a body of works that features language and has been determined, by critics and readers, to have significant cultural value and thus is worth preserving. See my notes on literature: definitions. See also my notes on Katherine Hayles’s article on electronic literature.

Media (plural); Medium (singular). This term refers simply to forms of communications technology. Books are one kind of media; hypertext, MOOs, blogs, and wikis are other forms of media, in this case digital media. We have become so used to the technology of the book that we usually forget that it is a technology, or a form of media. In contrast, because media forms are so apparent (and often problematic) in digital applications, we are very aware of the way communications technology affect the production and consumption of literary texts. The more we familiarize ourselves with digital literature, the more we will no doubt, once again, take media for granted.See my notes on media, mediation, and remediation.

Multimedia. Digital objects use multiple forms, or media, in their composition. The most common combination is of word and image, something many non-digital objects (such as books) have been using in combination for centuries. Digital objects tend to go beyond just words and images, and typically include sound or video as well. To offer various forms of media in digital objects, these objects usually make use of database technology. They also use other media to create for the reader multiple opportunities for interaction, as well as a sense of immersion in the digital object.

Navigation. This is a key term in digital literature, distinguishing it from non-digital, or print, literature.  Reading a print work is a fairly straight-forward exercise, since there are limited ways in which to access the content (words and images) in print. But reading a digital object, in that it typically offers multiple means of access, and is a database on the “back end,” must offer different ways to navigate the object without confusing the reader. This is a task at which many authors of digital objects fail, including a few on our syllabus.

Remediation. Remediation refers to the ways in which newer forms of media tend to borrow from and change older forms of media in the process of eclipsing or replacing them. The most pertinent example in terms of this course has been the way in which elements of the book have found a second life in digital media, even while digital media have largely superseded books as the preferred media for transmitting literary and cultural works. In calling documents on the web “pages,” and the activity of perusing these pages “reading” (even when the experience is more “watching” than “reading”), we see just a few ways in which the medium of the book has been remediated by digital media. Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, who coined the term “remediation” in terms of literature, also speak of a “double logic” of remediation, which consists of immediacy and hypermediacy. Immediacy refers to the attempted removal of all traces of media so as to give the reader a sense of virtual immersion; hypermediacy does the opposite: it makes media very obvious, and multiplies mediation “as to create a feeling of fullness, a satiety of experience, which can be taken as reality” (Bolter and Grusin 53). Web 1.0 applications tend to emphasize immediacy, trying to make media invisible; Web 2.0 applications tend to emphasize hypermediacy: the more media we are conscious of, the more real (or immersive) it feels to us. See my notes on media, mediation, and remediation.

Subjectivity. This is a big word for “sense of ourselves.” In general, in the modern world we sense ourselves as rational, conscious, emotional, and individual selves. It is this last point that is generally emphasized when (in the West) we discuss subjectivity: we are individuals, we are separate; we are not objects controlled by others, but rather subjects in control of our selves and our world. But it must be stressed that subjectivity is a social and cultural construction. People have not always had a sense of themselves as subjects, as subjectivity is defined above. And this sense of ourselves may change in the future; in fact, in our “wired world” modern subjectivity is under revision, right now. Subjectivity changes when we involve ourselves, physically and mentally, with electronic technology. On a computer, in what Katherine Hayles calls a “distributed cognitive environment,” our very thinking is mediated by machines. This occurs when it is just me and a computer; but it is even more impactful when we are on an electronic network: in that case, our very thinking is mediated by several machines. This change in thought, in our mental hard-wiring, changes our sense of our selves and of the world, and thus our subjectivity. We might call it digital subjectivity. In my notes on digital subjectivity, I argue that the digital evokes three new subjectivities—that is, immersive, networked, and technological subjectivities, each of which gives us a new and different sense of self. See my notes on digital subjectivity.

Web 1.0. This is the first phase of the World Wide Web, now thought to be superseded by Web 2.0. In Web 1.0, authors of digital literature created objects using digital applications and software, sometimes “published” and read on the web, but generally not. Many made use of internet (as opposed to web) applications, such as MOOs and interactive fiction programs. They were often stored on portable disks, or on computer hard-drives (such as Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl), that made no use of the web. All this is due, in part, to the fact that many of these early digital objects were created before the web became popular. In Web 1.0, the author, even when he or she was giving the reader the “freedom” offered by hypertext, remained in control. This has changed drastically in our Web 2.0 world.

Web 2.0. This is the second, and current, phase of the World Wide Web. In a Web 2.0 environment, web content can be customized to the user’s specifications, and social networking and collaboration are the preferred activities online. This, of course, radically changes the way authors create digital objects, and the way readers, or users, access these works. It favors the reader over the author, or, in effect, makes the reader the author. It has given rise to new genres within digital literature, such as flogs and wiki literature. Digital literary critics are only just now coming to terms with the change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. In that the author is downgraded in Web 2.0; and the means of authors being paid in this new, mostly-free, environment are next to impossible; it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish readers from authors and, I suggest, fiction from reality.