Electronic Text Canon
by frankdevar
Off of the discussion in our previous class on the existing literary canon and the potential for an electronic literary canon, I want to discuss the difficulties a canon in digital text might face.
The first and most discouraging factor against a digital literary canon lies in the speed in which technology advances and likewise becomes obsolete. Lexia to Perplexia is a prime example of a well-regarded digital text that cannot be viewed by the vast majority operating systems simply because it can only be viewed under Internet Explorer 7 or Netscape 4. Antiquated operating systems like these render digital texts outdated, inaccessible, and ultimately, unread. The existing western canon in literature consists of tangible forms of its literature, and hold name recognition among a wide audience. Electronic texts hold neither, at the moment.
Another paradigm in the formation of a digital text canon, is in the issue of its storytelling. Whereas traditional novels are read in a linear manner causing the reader to look for patterns in plots or themes, digital literature will not if it contains links to other pages within existing pages, or videos and pictures occurring throughout. These additions in an electronic text do not necessarily take away from a story, but does force the reader to adapt to a foreign style.
My last concern is with the audience. The existing literary canon features authors that are well known and read in schools around the world. Many of the works may not have been read by most, but are at the least known. Digital texts are known only by a small percent that actively read and pursue them. As the world becomes increasingly attached to computers, there is little doubt that electronic literature will grow in popularity, but will face obstacles in achieving a canon like status.
- Canon /
- Class /
- Electronic Texts /
- Obstacles /
IE users comprise 54% of users, so everyone else is less than half. Hardly a "vast majority."
The issue you raise is a real one, though. Digital works have a problem with obsolescence that books don't (usually). Some digital texts make obsolescence part of their textuality. This hardly impacts the quality of the work, though.
No, that's what Harold Bloom thinks I should read.
There are two or three odd assumptions embedded in this sentence, so let me try and unpack them. You imply, first, that the form a work takes impacts its ability to coherent; second, that a work with images in it is non-linear and incoherent (film? comics?); third, that a work that doesn't contain images, video, or links can be read by looking for patter in plot or theme. Finally, you imply that this ability, to look for pattern in plot or theme, is how we evaluate whether something is "traditional", by which I think you mean "worthy of canon."
Forget electronic literature for a minute, "plot and theme" is a rather impoverished approach to any literature. I mean, I have no idea how you would read Joyce or Borges (both of whom are in Bloom's book) if you read for plot and theme and then were done with it. For many of my favorite Borges stories, the plot is trivial, it's the premise that's interesting. This is also the case with a lot of electronic literature.
Well, popularity and canonicity aren't necessarily the same thing. The whole premise of the neo-classical canon is that intellectuals tell other people what they should be reading in order to be intellectuals. It's a self-fulfilling cycle, in other words.
But anyway, why is there "little doubt" that this popularity will grow? You've painted a pretty bleak (though, I'd argue, inaccurate) picture for e-lit in your preceding paragraphs?
I was reading an essay by Stuart Moulthrop in my "big blue" Norton Anthology of theory and criticism (super canony), and he discusses this while talking about Project Xanadu.
There wouldn't be canons like bookshelves, but more like canon, as in the musical meaning, "congeries of connections and relationships that are recognizably orderly yet inexhaustibly various. The shifting networks of consensus and textual demand (or desire)...would be constructed by users and for users. Their very multiplicity and promiscuity...would militate powerfully against any slide from populitism back toward hierarchy." (You Say You Want A Revolution? Hypertext and The Laws of Media, Moulthrop 1991).
Seems like a description of internet memes. Lolcats are in the e-text canon, right?
I made a comment on this two days ago but I guess it didn't go through. Probably my fault.
What I spoke of was Harold Bloom and his canon. He actually made a physical list and that picture is, I assume, his list in published form. I found it quite an odd concept. His canon is so long no non-literary devotee could ever read through the whole list. Take that in tandem with the fact that modern society has even less time to devote to reading and you essentially have a list of books the average person avoids at all costs. It's so daunting in size it has become unnecessary to think of 'THE' canon of Bloom and easier to think of canonS.
That is why electronic lit would probably do best to stay off Bloom's canon. That way it has a chance of picking up a niche market like Romance or Graphic novels. After all when we include electronic lit into 'THE' canon why can't films be there also? Are they really more different a medium than electronic fiction?
Lastly, even though I don't agree with separatism arguments for literature based on race (such as the argument that African American lit should be judged based on African American standards and have a completely nonadjacent canon), I think it is perfectly reasonable to separate electronic lit into it's own mini-canon. That way canons stay at a reasonable size and are judged by aesthetics that have a chance at providing relevant criteria. Computer culture would be one of these fast developing areas. Hopefully I can support that in my blog post.
To start off, many of my picture captions have been sarcastic, with this post being no different. I'm not implying past texts are better, more making a joke on Harold Bloom's anthology.
Professor, you make a point that obsolescence in technology does not mar the quality of work. I somewhat disagree with this. I'm going to use video game computing systems as an example. When Halo first came out on Xbox it was incredibly popular and loved, but as soon as Halo 2 was released and xbox 360 came out, the original Halo went on the backburner. My point is, when technology becomes outdated, it becomes unused. In ten years, will Lexia to Perplexia be viewed except by college students interested in Media Arts? It can probably be argued that this same logic can be used for my literature in the existing western canon, but at least those works are easily accessible at most bookstores
In your comments on plot and theme, I do not consider a linear plot necessary for a text to be canonized, what I meant was that, we have been programmed to look for patterns in text. When reading Joyce, you may not notice a plot, but you certainly are trying to form one. By reading a book in a linear fashion, I also meant reading from page 1 to finish. I don't know much about electronic text but based on Lexia to Perplexia, that is not the form. In this sense, the thought process when reading electronic literature will be different than that of a linear novel.
My thoughts on e-lit becoming more popular is precisely because the internet and technology will advance and play a larger role in peoples lives. E-lit will become more and more accessible to the public, and will undoubtedly find ways of presenting it's content in an appealing medium to the public.
I think canonizing e-lit is possible, but will face obstacles.
Right, and this here is the problem: you've gone straight from "popular and loved" to "quality." Surely there isn't a necessary relationship between these two attributes, and if there were, then our canons would look a lot different. Bloom especially is all about making the argument that we should be reading different, better books. So popularity is a qualifier I take issue with.
The point I'm making about obsolescence is not that an obsolete work is of less quality or less intellectual value, but that we aren't even able to evaluate that work if we can't access it at all. And this is a loss we can actually prevent, so the question isn't just will it be viewed in 10 years, but should it.
Anyway, Halo games are to me not very interesting textually. That is, I enjoy multiplayer, when I get a chance to drop in, but story-wise, they're just OK. Furthermore, the differences between the two games (Halo 1 and 2) are mostly technical. In other words, it doesn't make sense to talk about their story evolving to replace the original story, because that's not how storytelling works. So, from a story perspective, it's not like we can just forget Halo now that we've got Halo 2, which is why that analogy with electronic literature doesn't really hold up.
Post new comment