“Hypertext provides multiple paths between text segments, now often called ‘lexias’ in a borrowing from the pre- hypertexual but prescient Roland Paths. With its web of linked lexias, its networks of alternate routes (as opposed to print’s fixed unidirectional page-turning) hypertext presents a radically divergent technology, interactive and polyvocal, favoring a plurality of discourses over definitive utterance and freeing the reader from domination by the author” (Birkerts 153).

Birkerts explanation of a hypertext shows how it can be a bunch of windows that leads a reader to nowhere. At the end of my experience, I felt like the novel was incomplete. There were a lot of loose ends that never were tied together at the end. Also, the accessibility can be a problem; I was one of those few who could not access Patchwork Girl on my computer because the software was not compatible. This issue causes a problem which, eventually no one will be able to access it because it will be older and the software will not support it. On the other hand, books can be read at any time if kept in good conditions. Having just argued that Patchwork Girl failed as a digital text or novel, let us turn our attention to the point of Patchwork Girl and the reason why it was made how it was made makes it clear that books are not the only source of reading that can expand the mind.
The way that Jackson created this form of a novel forces the readers to really pay attention and to think. The main purpose of a novel is to get someone to think about what they are reading or what they read. Since Jackson created a novel in the form of a puzzle, readers are constantly trying to put it all together. Books can be puzzle like as well, but the way I am using puzzle in this case is showing how complicated it is to follow Patchwork Girl. The reader or observer has to put all different connections together to make sense of what they are reading.

Books are also a puzzle in a sense with plotlines, but they are not as confusing as Patchwork Girl presents itself. Since Patchwork Girl is so complicated and hard to follow at times, it becomes more than a puzzle, it becomes almost as a chore. When I’m reading a book that is interesting and an easy read, I never want to put it down or I always want to pick it up when I can. But with Patchwork Girl I was relieved when I put it away and also, never wanted to actually continue to try and figure out what was going on.
Sven Birkerts on the other hand, author of The Gutenberg Elegies, argues that close reading only can be in reading books. On page 154,

“Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words which appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved and fixed into place with a keystroke-have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page” (Birkerts 154).

Here Birkerts is stating that when someone is reading on the internet they get different experiences rather than when they read a book. He is saying that books give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel and plot. I agree with Sven with this point but it’s a matter if he can get the reader’s interest.

Also, close reading comes into play. Close reading is when a reader reads deeper into the story to find a hidden meaning or a deeper story behind the surface of the novel. While clicking through Patchwork Girl I realized how much harder it was to actually close read. The whole time I was trying to find the storyline or determine what was going on. Meanwhile when I read books I can actually close read because I do not have to worry about clicking on a window and forget what the previous three windows were. Books I can go back or re-read a section and know exactly what is going on.

Since Patchwork Girl is still around and people are still “reading” it, I see that it achieved more then it failed. It achieved because of the way it was built and the rise of technology. The world is advancing and books are becoming something sort of the past. The world is advancing rapidly. With every passing year new technologies are being discovered. The internet is growing and growing, such as facebook, myspace, and twitter becoming huge parts of communication in society. Also, the internet gives you access to pretty much anything you want. Since you can read this online it intrigues the electronic era more than books would.
Patchwork Girl actually does give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel but only through the experiences with the hypertext. Since you have to be interactive through the whole experience, you become closer. Birkerts is claiming that only books can give you that satisfaction but, Patchwork Girl is a perfect example of a hypertext doing just as well maybe even better then a book does with getting the interest of a reader.
In sum, then, I find Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl, achieved and failed as a digital text. It does grab the reader right away with her style and structure, but fails to give the reader a sense of being a novel or complete. Although, I grant that Patchwork Girl can create a feeling of incompleteness, it still achieves as a hypertext but not a novel.

Works Cited
• Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. London: Faber & Faber, 2006. Print.

I felt a stronger connection with this paper and thought I did a good job with discussing both sides of the arguement. I brought in many aspects from both sides to strengthen my point. I also strengthened my introduction. I cleared up my thesis by stating my point and chose a side. I also tied in the second paper theme with this paper. I implemented a paragraph that talks about close reading between PWG and books.

I see my writing improving every paper. This one I had a lot of fun with and could really understand what I had to deliver in this paper.

A novel is considered to be a production as a whole with no loose ends or unanswered questions. Patchwork Girl is a bunch of windows that are almost like fragments in a book. Nothing flows throughout the digital text like a book would. Hypertexts are endless windows that connect to each other but do not form a sense of wholeness. Sven Birkerts, author of The Gutenberg Elegies, defines hypertext as,

“Hypertext provides multiple paths between text segments, now often called ‘lexias’ in a borrowing from the pre- hypertexual but prescient Roland Paths. With its web of linked lexias, its networks of alternate routes (as opposed to print’s fixed unidirectional page-turning) hypertext presents a radically divergent technology, interactive and polyvocal, favoring a plurality of discourses over definitive utterance and freeing the reader from domination by the author” (Birkerts 153)

Birkerts explanation of a hypertext shows how it can be a bunch of windows that leads a reader to nowhere. At the end of my experience, I felt like the novel was incomplete. There were a lot of loose ends that never were tied together at the end. Also, the accessibility can be a problem; I was one of those few who could not access Patchwork Girl on my computer because the software was not compatible. This issue causes a problem which, eventually no one will be able to access it because it will be older and the software will not support it. On the other hand, books can be read at any time if kept in good conditions. Having just argued that Patchwork Girl failed as a digital text or novel, let us turn our attention to the point of Patchwork Girl and the reason why it was made how it was made makes it clear that books are not the only source of reading that can expand the mind.

The way that Jackson created this form of a novel forces the readers to really pay attention and to think. The main purpose of a novel is to get someone to think about what they are reading or what they read. Since Jackson created a novel in the form of a puzzle, readers are constantly trying to put it all together.

Sven Birkerts on the other hand, author of The Gutenberg Elegies, argues that close reading only can be in reading books. On page 154,

“Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words which appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved and fixed into place with a keystroke-have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page” (Birkerts 154).

Here Birkerts is stating that when someone is reading on the internet they get different experiences rather than when they read a book. He is saying that books give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel and plot. I agree with Sven with this point but it’s a matter if he can get the reader’s interest.
Since Patchwork Girl is still around and people are still “reading” it, I see that it achieved more then it failed. It achieved because of the way it was built and the rise of technology. The world is advancing and books are becoming something sort of the past. Since you can read this online it intrigues the electronic era more than books would.

Patchwork Girl actually does give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel but only through the experiences with the hypertext. Since you have to be interactive through the whole experience, you become closer. Birkerts is claiming that only books can give you that satisfaction but, Patchwork Girl is a perfect example of a hypertext doing just as well maybe even better then a book does with getting the interest of a reader.

In sum, then, I find Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl, achieved and failed as a digital text. It does grab the reader right away with her style and structure, but fails to give the reader a sense of being a novel or complete. Although, I grant that Patchwork Girl can create a feeling of incompleteness, it still achieves as a hypertext but not a novel.

Works Cited
• Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. London: Faber & Faber, 2006. Print.

“Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words which appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved and fixed into place with a keystroke-have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page.”

Here Birkerts is stating that when someone is reading on the internet they get different experiences rather than when they read a book. He is saying that books give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel and plot. But Patchwork Girl does just that and more.
Patchwork Girl actually does give readers a better feeling of attachment to the novel and plot. Since you have to be interactive with it through the whole experience, you become closer and closer to it and find that you have become attached to the point where you find out what is really going on in the storyline. Birkerts is claiming that only books can give you that satisfaction but Patchwork Girl is a perfect example of technology doing just as well maybe even better then a book does with getting the attachment across. Patchwork Girl kept my interest the whole time but reading a book suck as The Gutenberg Elegies just made me keep thinking, “why am I reading this book?” But With Patchwork Girl, I wanted to find out why and how to read it. It challenged me more than a book would and therefore expanded my mind and made me think.
Although I grant that Patchwork Girl can get annoying and very frustrating, I still maintain that it achieved what its main purpose was when it was created.

He claims that he feels detached from what he is reading because it is a hypertext. But no matter how I look at it I see it as the same thing. A text on a computer is the same thing if it was on page 45 of a book or novel. Reading is reading to me and Sven Birkerts just makes it sound like no matter what a text in a book is better. Even if it is the same text. Saying that it doesn’t have the same meaning because it isn’t in a book is ridiculous.

On page 154,  “Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words which appear and disappear, even if theycan be retrieved and fixed into place with a keystroke-have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page.” I disagree with this very much because it is an opinion through in and through out. Birkerts makes up the most ridiculous comments about reading and technology that I can barely follow him sometimes.

So my overall feelings toward Birkerts with regards to hypertext is that I feel like he is just talking to talk. His ideas are total opposite of mine and they just are sounding ridiculous.

Professor Meehan

English 101

10/30/09

I, Frankenstein

            Frankenstein is one of the most recognizable novels of all time. There have been many movies that have used the idea of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and created a similar type meaning in the movies. I, Robot starring Will Smith provides a few scenes where remediation of Frankenstein can be seen taking place in the writing of this movie.

            Frankenstein is about a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who creates life using science. Victor abandoned the creature with no help to comprehend the world. The creature gets angry and things go for the worse and the creature kills everyone close to Victor. Eventually Victor is alone in the world because the creature was alone and made Victor lonely. Victor and the creature eventually die but it was all because Victor created something which lead to his downfall.

            I, Robot is about a futuristic story set in Chicago set in the year 2035. Scientists have created Robots to help humans in daily routines. Some robots are bartenders, delivery man, and a helping hand around the house. Detective Del Spooner, Will smith, is a cop who is anti-robot and investigates a crime that everyone claims is a suicide. But detective Spooner has a hunch that it was not a suicide and believes that a robot, a Nestor Class-5 robot who calls himself Sonny, murdered robot scientist Dr. Alfred Lanning, the robot’s designer.

           In the interrogation scene, after they caught the robot that “killed” his creator, Dr. Lanning, Will Smith asks the Robot questions to see why he killed Dr. Lanning and creates the Robot to get angry. This shows that something that is not human to have emotions. I can see a connection with the story and the movie because in Frankenstein he creates something that is not naturally created and Will Smith is convinced that the robots cannot experience human things. Mary Shelley’s idea was to create something without the help of God and show how hideous the outcome was. In this scene it shows that the creation is not necessarily hideous but it turns out to be a bad creation and ends up with an all out war between humans and robots. Everyone in the movie sees the murder to be a case of, human creates monster, monster kills human, everybody kills monster. There is a strong connection to Frankenstein here because that is close to Frankenstein’s story line. After the interrogation, there is a scene in a café where Will Smith and another detective are discussing the interrogation.

            They are in the café and the other detective tells Will Smith that he was thinking of the situation and even says, “guy creates monster, monster kills guy, everyone kills monster.” Again this is brought up and is a direct connection to Frankenstein. The robot was created for a purpose. Just like Frankenstein, the novel itself, was created for a purpose. Shelley published it to get her work out there and show that a woman wrote this and it’s just as good as a man’s work. Society would have perceived it differently if she published it with her name and would have been look down upon. The robots are created to help the world, but eventually things go wrong and there is an all out war between humans and technology. Having too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

            In both Frankenstein and I, Robot there is someone who has a lot of knowledge which leads to their downfalls. Victor Frankenstein knows too much about creating life but does not think of the danger he is creating and leads to death to his family because the creature kills them because he was feeling lonely and wanted revenge on Victor for causing him the pain inside he had to deal with. Eventually, the creature kills Elizabeth, the one who is closest to Victor. Victor was finally alone in the world and it lead to his death. Dr. Alfred Lanning knows too much about technology and creates a robot that learns too much. It controls his life to where eventually he creates a robot to actually kill himself because it was the only way he could save the human race. Knowing too much of one thing can be a bad thing because which is evident in these two pieces of work.

            In conclusion, a movie that is based on science fiction and technology is based on a novel that is over 200 years old. It is based off of a gothic novel where technology would never even be thought of in stories.  

            Frankenstein is one of the most recognizable novels of all time. There have been many movies that have used the idea of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and created a similar type meaning in the movies. I, Robot starring Will Smith provides a couple of scenes where I can connect Frankenstein to be a factor in the writing of this movie.

            Frankenstein is about a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who creates life using science. Victor abandoned the creature with no help to comprehend the world. The creature gets angry and things go for the worse and the creature kills everyone close to Victor. Eventually Victor is alone in the world because the creature was alone and made Victor lonely. Victor and the creature eventually die but it was all because Victor created something which lead to his downfall.

            I, Robot is about a futuristic story set in Chicago set in the year 2035. Scientists have created Robots to help humans in daily routines. Some robots are bartenders, delivery guy, and a helping hand around the house. Detective Del Spooner, Will smith, is a cop who is anti-robot and investigates a crime that everyone claims is a suicide. But detective Spooner has a hunch that it was not a suicide and believes that a robot, a Nestor Class-5 robot who calls himself Sonny, murdered robot scientist Dr. Alfred Lanning, the robot’s designer.

              In the interrogation scene, after they caught the robot that “killed” his creator, Dr. Lanning, Will Smith asks the Robot questions to see why he killed Dr. Lanning and creates the Robot to get angry. This shows that something that is not human to have emotions. I can see a connection with the story and the movie because in Frankenstein he creates something that is not naturally created and Will Smith is convinced that the robots cannot experience human things. Mary Shelley’s idea was to create something without the help of God and show how hideous the outcome was. In this scene it shows that the creation is not necessarily hideous but it turns out to be a bad creation and ends up with an all out war between humans and robots. Everyone in the movie sees the murder to be a case of, human creates monster, monster kills human, everybody kills monster. There is a strong connection to Frankenstein here because that is close to Frankenstein’s story line. After the interrogation, there is a scene in a café where Will Smith and another detective are discussing the interrogation.

            They are in the café and the other detective tells Will Smith that he was thinking of the situation and even says, “guy creates monster, monster kills guy, everyone kills monster.” Again this is brought up and is a direct connection to Frankenstein. The robot was created for a purpose. Just like Frankenstein, the novel itself, was created for a purpose. Shelley published it to get her work out there and show that a woman wrote this and it’s just as good as a man’s work. Society would have perceived it differently if she published it with her name and would have been look down upon. The robots are created to help the world, but eventually things go wrong and there is an all out war between humans and technology. Having too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

            In both Frankenstein and I, Robot there are scientists and doctors who have a lot of knowledge which leads to their downfalls. Victor Frankenstein knows too much about creating human but does not think of the danger he is creating and leads to death in his family because the creature kills them. Dr. Alfred Lanning knows too much about technology and creates a robot that learns too much and controls his life and eventually he creates a robot to actually kill himself because it was the only way he could save the human race.  

Professor Meehan

English 101

10/28/09

I, Frankenstein

            Frankenstein is one of the most recognizable novels of all time. There have been many movies that have used the idea of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and created a similar type meaning in the movies. I, Robot starring Will Smith, provides a couple of scenes where I can connect Frankenstein to be a factor in the writing of this movie.

            In the interrogation scene, after they caught the robot that “killed” his creator, Dr. Lanning, Will Smith asks the Robot questions to see why he killed Dr. Lanning and creates the Robot to get angry. This shows that something that is not human to have emotions. I can see a connection with the story and the movie because in Frankenstein he creates something that is not naturally created and Will Smith is convinced that the robots cannot experience human things. Mary Shelley’s idea was to create something without the help of God and show how hideous the outcome was. In this scene it shows that the creation is not necessarily hideous but it turns out to be a bad creation and ends up with an all out war between humans and robots. Everyone in the movie sees the murder to be a case of, human creates monster, monster kills human, everybody kills monster. There is a strong connection to Frankenstein here because that is close to Frankenstein’s story line. After the interrogation, there is a scene in a café where Will Smith and another detective are discussing the interrogation.

            They are in the café and the other detective tells Will Smith that he was thinking of the situation and even says, “guy creates monster, monster kills guy, everyone kills monster.” Again this is brought up and is a direct connection to Frankenstein. The robot was created for a purpose. Just like Frankenstein, the novel itself, was created for a purpose. Shelley published it to get her work out there and show that a woman wrote this and it’s just as good as a man’s work. Society would have perceived it differently if she published it with her name and would have been look down upon. The robots are created to help the world but eventually something goes wrong and there is an all out war.