Frankentextual

Scott Weisman

HyperFrankentextual

As a developing intellectual in the 21th century, it is inevitable that the future of society is being shaped and transformed by the overbearing presence of the technology era. As a college student, I am currently embarking on an academic journey that will develop both my identity and ideologies as a thinker in the modern world.  In this era of digital inundation, academics are given the opportunity to exploit cutting-edge resources that were not available to previous generations. Although new technological variables such as blogging, hypertexts, and computers present a wealth of possibilities for readers and writers, one must examine their influence from an objective and critical standpoint. Contemporary college students are the guinea pigs of this literary movement, and the manner in which this group interacts with literature will foretell the future of intellectualism in the coming age.

As the longevity of reading and writing is in the hands of the emerging next-generation thinkers, it is vital to analyze the effects of new mediums with a keen eye.  Due to the changing of informational vehicles, critics such as Sven Birkerts composed the Gutenberg Elegies to warn mankind on the diminishing effects that the electronic age has on the fate of individualism and deep thought.  In spite of Birkerts well thought-out argument, I believe Mary Shelley provides the paramount philosophy for the birth of creation and new knowledge.  Specifically, through the allusion of Prometheus, coupled with the themes radiated by Frankenstein’s monster, readers are taught how to treat the fragile nature of invention. 

Correlating with the significance of interactive reading, Mary Shelley directly introduces Prometheus on the cover page as a seemingly alternative title for the piece.  As the author attempts to convey the parallel between the Grecian mythical character and her own narrative, it is crucial for the reader to identify the mythology of Prometheus in order to comprehend the scholarly merit of Frankenstein. Shelley’s suggestion of Prometheus refers to the Greek character that “molded mankind out of clay in the image of the Gods, to gratify Uranus.” In the process, Prometheus became the father of man and developed an emotional compassion for these original creatures. In an attempt to educate and convene their animalistic state of existence, Prometheus transferred the knowledge of basic tool building skills to his human children. As Zeus became paranoid at the futuristic potential for man to conflict and war with the Gods, he preferred for these beings to remain technologically oblivious. In spite of Zeus’s requests, Prometheus stole fire and presented it to humanity, providing them with the aptitude for the birth of science and technology. As this betrayed the powerful God Zeus, he was sentenced an eternity of immortal suffering. Specifically, Prometheus was condemned to a rock, and was forced to withstand having his inners eaten by an Eagle everyday (Downing Central).

            As the myth of Prometheus is a tragedy, the tale of Frankenstein follows a homogenous pattern. In Shelley’s narrative, Victor enacts the modern day role of the Greek Giant as he endeavored into the obscure and dark scientific art of creation.  Similar to Prometheus, he constructed a unique conception in the Godly image of himself, making him the theoretical father of a new species. According to Victor, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent creatures would owe their being to me” (Mary Shelley 58). As these plots are relatively compliant, Victor’s reality ensued a lifelong punishment of suffering and torment as his benevolently intended creation backfired. Although Prometheus was literally chained to a life of misery, Victor was symbolically bonded to a life cursed with guilt and death. As a result of these striking resemblances it is a logical observation that if one can identify the plot of Prometheus, then they can fathom the literature of Frankenstein as well.

            As one can detect, Mary Shelley intensively pursued her allusion to Greek mysticism in this piece.  Nonetheless, for the audience of this story, it is significant to engage in “intertexuality,” and decipher her reasoning for this pursuit.  If one’s interpretation is like a word puzzle, then they must factor out the extraneous information, and identify the pieces that fit together in both of these tales.  From an observational standpoint, the three chief motifs that interconnect and create meaning in this novel are the topics of creation, technology, and consequences.

In association with the first motif, both Prometheus and Victor intended on producing stunning and Godly species. In Victor’s initial interface with his grotesque invention, he asserted, “ His limbs were in proportion, and I selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!”(Shelley 60). Despite that both of these creators indulged in the technological procedures of completing their conceptions, it ultimately concluded in their downfall.  These fragments come together to form Shelley’s final thesis that the reckless transfer of knowledge can cause suffering. Shelley vigorously contemplates the implications this debate in her literature.  For instance, upon the Monster’s primary interaction with the element of fire, he claimed, “I was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How Strange, I thought that the same cause should produce such opposite effects” (Mary Shelley 97).  In this passage, Victor’s construction observed the positive attributes associated with fire, mankind’s most primitive form of technology.  The creation realized that the production of fire enlightened, enhanced, and comforted his existence through its ability to cook food and generate warmth. However, in a momentous literary effect, Victor’s invention noticed that upon touching the fire, a sensation of pain was induced. This is at the most simple form, the controversial debate of technology. In explanation, fire or technology can either be exploited for destruction, or it can be applied to sophisticate and better manhood.

            Mary Shelley’s allusion to the “modern day Prometheus” is strongly entangled with themes that relate to the changing media landscape. One can perceive Frankenstein’s monster as a fable in relation to literature’s new breed of hypertexts and other social mediated outlets. To justify this claim, Frankenstein’s creation was conceived as raw and limitless technology. If the invention was raised in a responsible manner, it had abundant humanitarian capabilities. This was a being that yearned for love, interaction, compassion, and knowledge. On the contrary, its upbringing was fatherless, lonely, and dark.   Victor neglected what could have been a scientific masterpiece. As a result, the monster’s existence evolved into one that was characterized by murder, hatred, and revenge.  This aspect of Shelley’s novel directly correlates with Sven Birkert’s philosophy on the electrical age because he fears the unintentional consequences that can derive from producing technology.

Applying the tale of Prometheus, one can interpret computerization as humanity’s gift of fire. While this is an invention that can figuratively provide warmth for mankind, it has destructive properties identical to fire as well. Explicitly, the computerization of humanity has the potential to enlighten scholars by engulfing them with information, providing them with quicker and broader access to literature, and by interconnecting them with a multitude of relevant idealisms from other thinkers.  This digital era can evolve man by acculturating individuals with an infinite range of knowledge. Although this rudiment has extraordinarily benevolent applications, onlookers such as Birkerts dread the opposite. Birkert’s attitude is that digital mediation is diverting the populace away from the print culture that the book promoted.  Additionally, Birkert’s theorizes that the high-speed transfer of information embodied by the electronic age demotes readers’ ability to critically analyze a text. As a result he believes that humanity is loosing their substance because information is spoon-fed to us. Another aspect of the digital era that concerns Birkerts is the social connection of ideas that exist in materials such as blog sites. In his belief, thought should be private and individualistic rather than public. Birkerts hypothesizes that the public nature of the Internet conforms personalities into a homogenous mass as ignorant audiences embrace ideas too readily.   In the most striking similarity to Frankenstein’s monster, the latest edition to reading and writing has arrived to the scene as hypertexts. This is a term that refers to the collaboration of multiple mediums that bind together in the production of a uniformed piece. This new format of reading engages the reader at a high-speed and on a multitude of sensual levels such as imagery, sound, moment, and prose. 

            I have concluded that hypertexts are a benevolent addition to the future of reading and writing. However, through the experience of my personal endeavors, I cannot discount Birkert’s merit. Specifically, in the analysis of works such as The Museum, I was engrossed in a negative reading experience.  Particularly, The Museum is a text that utilizes the visual image of a gallery’s map, which invites the audience to freely roam though its content in a game-like fashion. At first glance, this attribute was enchanting. I found myself clicking through a virtual realm of passages and icons, as I raced though an interactive adventure. This initial amusement that was witnessed in the hyper- textual world, soon turned to frustration. I was trapped and mystified in the non-linear enigma that this hypertext embraced. An example that depicts this experience appears immediately within this work. After progressing through the lobby, the reader arrives in The South Wing, in which they are presented with seven options that succeed to a new page. Specifically, these links are labeled “glittering lights”, “an abstract fresco”,  “A Sleeping Beauty Figure”, “The Atrium”,  “A Little Girl”, “The West Wing”, and “The Lobby.” This causes various implications because it is nearly impossible to interpret which direction is the correct path. As a reader I found myself incapable to separate important details from extraneous elements.  Because of this factor, my ability to read analytically seemed to diminish. I could not find a pathway to finish the work, and was therefore intellectually unaffected.  In other words, The Museum seemed to have a degenerate academic effect. It was a work that intended to involve its audience, but in its attempt converted them into viewers and not readers. In identification with Birkerts, the viewer in this hypertext did not read information; they were simply given it, which ironically forced the audience to become less interactive.

            As I consciously observed hyper-mediated works such as The Museum fail, I determined that readers must be careful with this new format of literature. However, an essential aspect of these hypertexts that Birkerts does not acknowledge is their hypothetical possibility to enrich literature for mankind. An excellent example of how the hypertext can be manipulated to generate well-crafted literature is in The Invention Of Hugo Cabret.  This novel reveals a tale about a boy who unearthed his way out of poverty and loneliness through his boyhood wonder, and immense passion.   As this work implemented the dualism of prose and drawings, it relied on multiple mediums to unveil a story.  As Selznick ultimately succeeded in his production, he fashioned an enlightening configuration that was dense with integral literary characteristics. For the audience of Hugo, Selznick provoked deep, intellectual thought through his assembly of symbols, themes, and plot. This work packed an equal literary punch as any of the classic works I have read, but at a quicker rate.  As one can interpret, this property of the hypertext points to its extraordinary capability to educate, and sophisticate an audience.

            If one were to compare the birth of hyper-mediation to the creation of Frankenstein’s’ monster and the myth of Prometheus, the resemblance lies in the theory of invention.  As one can distinguish this new shape of literature was created in the aspirations to bring life to reading and writing. However, it is in the hands of contemporary readers and writers to raise this entity in a controlled and positive manner. If we irresponsibly neglect this technology, it may become the assassin of literature, identical to the effect of Frankenstein’s creation. 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.

“Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace.” Hamlet on the Holodeck. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=572887>.

“Mrs. Dowling’s Mythology Unit- The Story of Prometheus and How He Gives Fire To Man.” Mrs. Dowling’s Mythology Unit-The Story of Prometheus and How He Gives Fire To Man. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. <http://www.dowlingcentral.com/MrsD/area/unitthemes/myth/prometheus.html>.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Diana Gibson. Frankenstein. Madrid, España: Edimat Libros, 2000. Print.

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2006. Print.

            Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.

 

Scott Weisman

Reflection for final

This semester in English 101, our class has engaged in various literary texts that thematically illustrate the argument of technology. After reading a multitude of works such as The Gutenberg Elegies, Frankenstein, Hugo, Rewriting, and The Medium is the Massage, I have observed a range of valid opinions on the topic of reading and writing in this technological age. The most interesting critique of this coming era in literature was Sven Birkerts, a reviewer that our class seemed to love to hate. Although I did not identify with Birkert’s belief on this subject, I gradually became increasingly accepting and respectful of his point of view. In explanation, I believe that society needs people like Birkerts to question aspects of humanity. If as a civilization we become compliant with change, instead of critically examining it, then change can happen for the worse. Because of this, Birkert’s greatest academic merit comes in the shape of his actual stance. As this essayist utilizes wacky and extreme examples to portray his attitude, he portrayed a message that was a personal revelation for me.  As an objective witness of the class that including myself, I noticed widespread discomfort and anger with Birkerts prose. At times I felt like Birkerts was not even provided a fair chance. For this reason, I realized that what Birkerts was analyzing in his piece was completely relevant. Our class possessed a homogenous mindset on the opinions of Birkerts. To me this means that we are potential victims of this new culture that Birkerts is so worried about. Perhaps we are overly- comfortable with change in the 21^st century.

            Because of this fact, I wanted to utilize my final essay to express my private belief that society needs to be careful with cutting-edge technology. To achieve my goal, I largely applied my second essay on “intertextual” reading in Frankenstein. This novel was relevant to my topic because it illustrated what can happen when benevolently intended invention and technology ends up going wrong. Similar to Birkerts, Shelly encourages her readers to be fatherly towards new developments. We cannot allow innovations such as the blog and the hypertext to roam freely because like Frankenstein’s conception, these constructions can turn malignant. I captured this in my final project by comparing this second essay, and applying it to the concerns found in the first and third essay. 

            An important motif that professor Meehan stressed to our class was the power of revision. In this last paper, I attempted to take the risk of combining all my previous works into one uniformed paper, which flowed and applied to a broader thesis. I kept thinking back to McLuhan’s quote as I crafted my final passage. “Art is anything you can get away with” (The Medium Is the Massage). I personally felt like I took a substantial risk because mixing all my papers together and making it work was not simple. It took a meticulous revision process to complete. Specifically, I focused largely on alternating my diction, adding body paragraphs, cutting out extraneous details, writing a new introduction and thesis, and finally constructing an innovative conclusion that was relevant to all aspects of the work.  I believe that the utilization of all three projects was a fascinating way to reminisce and analyze my intellectual development over the course of this class.

            Finally, I improved as a writer by learning techniques on how to sophisticate and polish an academic argument. Major features that I embraced was qualifying an opponent’s opinion, utilizing an in-depth revision process, and learning how to construct conclusions that offer insight on what may come next for the philosophical debate discussed in a paper. In my future semesters at Washington College I hope to continue to improve on my argumentative skills by applying what I learned in this class. There is always room for revision and like a paper, I can always better my skills as a reader and writer.

 

 

 

 

Lets get Hyper-textual

Hypertext and reading

After becoming familiar with Sven Birkert’s novel, The Gutenberg Elegies and Janet Murray’s article, “Hamlet on the Holodeck”, I have been immersed into the argument of technology and its effects on the future of the literary culture. Recently, the supposed next- generation of reading has been introduced to the discussion in the form of hyper-mediation. Expressly, the term is coined as “hypertexts”, and it refers to the collaboration of multiple mediums that bind together in the production of a uniformed piece.   As this new format of reading engages the reader at a high-speed and on a multitude of sensual levels, critics such as Birkerts worry about the consequences that can potentially arise from this new aggressively- expanding technology. Specifically, Birkerts argues that this medium is a detriment to intellectualism, logic, and deep thought.  Conversely, opponents to Birkerts such as Murray embrace this technology and are convinced that it holds a pool of academic potential.  After critically investigating the claims of both sides, I tend to sympathize with Murray, as I argue on the behalf of hypertexts due to their ability to benefit and academically progress readers and writers.

Despite my identification with Murray’s point of view, there is a common denominator that exists within the critiques of both of these composers.  This variable tackles the strong belief that society is on the brink of change due to the overwhelming uprising and progression of the new digital world. On one hand, reviewers such as Birkerts pessimistically approach this topic, as they believe the electric medium to be the terminator of the individualistic nature of society. According to these academics, instead of a heterogeneous mixture of thinkers, we will theoretically evolve into a unified intellectual mass, destroying the culture that literature meticulously and methodically worked so hard to create.  As one can readily construe, it is understandable that literary philosophers such as Birkerts are frightened by this changing landscape of communication. The written word is their livelihood, their passion, and for Birkerts—seemingly his purpose. Books and prose have provided so many with the benevolent feelings of hope, love, and happiness.  Almost romantically, he is terrified to see it fade. However, as Murray believes, this does not have to be the case. In her words,  “The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible” (Hamlet on Holdeck).  This less extreme aspect to Murray’s approach is what generates its compelling nature. Murray understands that literature and print is an integral rudiment that simultaneously binds and enlightens our culture. Perhaps to find some common ground, I can agree that literature has a profound and important impact on society. It provides information that radiates lessons, morals, and knowledge. In spite of this, literature can be a separate component from books. It is my belief that the new age of media will simply be a more efficient means to spread this wholesome feature of literature.  In Murray’s words, the “book is an attempt to imagine a future digital medium, shaped by the hacker’s spirit and the enduring power of the imagination and worthy of the rapture our children are bringing to it“(Hamlet).  Just as the car replaced the horse, the computer is modernizing the book. As readers, we will ultimately end up in the same place, except now at a faster rate.

           

 

As the shift from the page to the computer is heavily linked with hyper-meditation, I have concluded that hypertexts are a benevolent addition to the future of reading and writing. However, through the experience of my personal endeavors, I cannot discount Birkert’s merit. Specifically, in the analysis of works such as the Museum, I was engrossed in a negative reading experience.  Particularly, The Museum is a text that utilizes the visual image of a gallery’s map, which almost game-like invites the audience to freely roam though its content. At first glance, this attribute was enchanting. I found myself clicking through a virtual realm of passages and icons, as I raced though an interactive adventure. This initial amusement that was witnessed in the hyper- textual world, soon turned to frustration. I found myself trapped and mystified in the non-linear enigma that this hypertext embraced. An example that depicts this experience appears immediately within this work. After progressing through the lobby, the reader arrives in The South Wing, in which they are presented with seven options that succeed to a new page. Specifically, these links are labeled “glittering lights”, “an abstract fresco”,  “A Sleeping Beauty Figure”, “The Atrium”,  “A Little Girl”, “The West Wing”, and “The Lobby.” This causes various implications because it is nearly impossible to interpret which direction is the correct path. As a reader I found myself incapable to separate important details from extraneous elements.  Interestingly, Birkerts details a similar hyper textual account, as he scripted,

“the battery of directions and option signals all but short-circuited any capacity I may have had to enter the life of the words on the screen. I was made so fidgety by the knowledge that I was positioned in a designed environment, with the freedom to rocket from on place to another with a keystroke, that I could scarcely hold still long enough to read what was there in front of me”(Birkerts, 161).

Falling into the same dupe as Birkerts, my ability to slow down and closely examine the prose in front of me, was rendered useless by the distraction of high-speed illustrations and vast movement. Seemingly, this emitted the sense that the composition’s words were background elements. This aspect completely flipped the historic relationship between prose and pictures. Typically the written word has ranked first, as the reader must acquaint with this feature to understand a text. In the specimen of the museum, my ability to read analytically seemed to diminish. Because of this, I could not find a pathway to finish the work, and was therefore intellectually unaffected.  In other words, the Museum seemed to have a degenerate academic effect. It was a work that intended to involve its audience, but in its attempt converted them into viewers and not readers. In identification with Birkerts, the viewer in this hypertext did not read information; they were simply given it, which ironically forced the audience to become less interactive.

            As I consciously observed hyper- mediated works such as The Museum fail, I determined that readers must be careful with this new format of literature. However, an essential aspect of these hypertexts that Birkerts does not acknowledge is their hypothetical possibility to enrich literature for mankind. It is completely unfair to arrive at a verdict after only appraising a couple of these compositions.  This point of the argument is reminiscent of a chief motif that was revealed throughout this semester. Precisely, this connection between hypertexts and technology exploits a homogenous set of themes as Frankenstein’s monster, and Prometheus’s gift of fire. In the sample of Mary Shelley’s novel, Victor’s creation was presented as raw technology. If Victor would have harnessed and controlled the power of his construction, instead of abandoning it and allowing it roam freely, the conception may have been a compassionate being. Likewise, the gift of fire, technologies most primitive form, could be applied for the advancement of humankind. In spite of its altruistic aptitudes, if used in the reverse way, this element can also personify death and destruction.  Extracting from the literary messages of both stories, the hypertext follows a consistent principle. The birth of the hypertext is taking place in the contemporary, and it is up to readers and writers to raise this entity in a controlled manner.  An excellent example of how the hypertext can be manipulated to generate well-crafted literature is in The Invention Of Hugo Cabret.  This novel reveals a tale about a boy who unearthed his way out of poverty and loneliness through his boyhood wonder, and immense passion.   As this work implemented the dualism of prose and drawings, it relied on multiple mediums to unveil a story.  As Selznick ultimately succeeded in his production, he fashioned an enlightening configuration that was dense with integral literary characteristics. For the audience of Hugo, Selznick provoked deep, intellectual thought through his assembly of symbols, themes, and plot. An explicit case in the text that demonstrates these articles is when Papa Georges claims, “Prometheus was rescued in the end” (494). In the context of Papa George’s conversation with Hugo, this portrays the ability of technology to liberate humanity through the comparison of the individual case of Hugo Cabret with the literary archetype of Prometheus.  As Hugo’s invention saved him in the end, perhaps the inventions of mankind can have a consistent result on a larger scale.  This work packed an equal literary punch as any of the classic works I have read, but at a quicker rate.  As one can interpret, this property of the hypertext points to its extraordinary capability to educate, and sophisticate an audience. If further hypertexts follow the pattern set by Hugo, this media can potentially lead to a greater population of people that are “well-read” due to the potential to read a greater quantity of texts in less time, and still have the qualities of the classic reading experience. As far as Birkerts and his futuristic projection of the written word, how can he argue with munificence of individuals reading more books? 

            After examining the relevance of hypertexts in media, it can be deduced from Birkert’s message, that as long as we can filter through junky works and remain vigilant about our endeavors, hypertexts have an exciting future in the craft of reading and writing.  “As Murray proclaims, “Just as the computer promises to reshape knowledge in ways that sometimes complement and sometimes supersede the work of the book and the lecture hall, so too does it promise to reshape the spectrum of narrative expression, not by replacing the novel or the movie but by continuing their timeless bardic work within another framework.” (Murray) Assuming that diligence and care are employed to shape the future of hyper-textual works, one should be optimistic towards the academic effect that the written word will have on the future of literature.

 

Works Cited

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.

“Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace.” Hamlet on the Holodeck. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=572887>.

Implications of Hypertext

Scott Weisman

English blog Hypertexts

 

Throughout this week in class, we analyzed the relevancy of the new breed of hypertexts in literature. Hypertexts are a form of writing that technologically exploits the medium of computers to build an interactive world between readers and information.   After personally engaging in a couple of these texts, while aware of Birkerts’ skepticism on this brand of authorship, I feel that Birkerts’ point of view is merited. It is a personal observation that the interface between hyper-mediation and prose cannot substitute for one another.  Just as Birkert’s platform argues, hypertext will never fill the void for the intellectual substance or entertainment value offered by the classic book.

At first glance, the presentational rudiment proposed by an interactive text is amusing and unique. These texts are seemingly collages of color, sounds, and effects that persuade the audience to play and have fun with the content at hand. However, this is where the line is drawn. Upon investigating past this aesthetic quality, the journey into these stories are frustrating and discouraging for the reader.  Specifically, this medium proposes what seems like an infinite quantity of original pathways through the works. In other words there is the potential for a multitude of plots, characters, events, and endings to take place. For the audience, the best word to describe this effect is annoying.  I often found myself lost and confused as I vigorously and mindlessly clicked my way through random pages scattered with illogical visuals and prose. This non-linear element did not bind together as a uniformed, intellectual piece. Instead, this style of hypertext media simply inundates the audience’s minds at an overwhelming and difficult-to-interpret speed.  For the readers of these pieces, it is also difficult to decipher the difference between important and unimportant information. It seemed nearly impossible to absorb   these plots, and embarking on these “hypertextual” excursions, seemed pointless.

Perhaps hypertexts are the future of reading. Birkerts himself states that this brand of media is still in its “infant” stage. Despite its potential, the contemporary version of this textual recourse is still primitive and ineffective. The basis of its idea is interesting, original and can be cultivated to have some sort of entertainment or educational value. Until then, the functionality of the hypertext is difficult to evaluate; its merit once the technology is perfected, may be legitimate. 

Effects of New Media

Scott Weisman

Opinions on Media glog

 

            Throughout this semester, our class has sampled various literary compositions that thematically offer their viewpoints on the effect that technology will have on the future of humanity. The current focus in class has been to analyze the intellectual impact of the shifting media landscape from the historical contents of the page to an innovated digital format. Although electronic skeptics such as Carr and Birkerts provide intriguing and thought-provoking analyses on this argument, I tend to sympathize with Murray’s platform due to its realistic and liberal nature.  

            Despite my identification with Murray’s point of view, there is a common denominator that exists within the critiques of all these composers.  This variable tackles the strong belief that society is on the brink of change due to the overwhelming uprising and progression of the new digital world. On one hand, critics such as Birkerts and Carr pessimistically approach this topic, as they believe the electric medium to be the terminator of the individualistic nature of society. According to these academics, instead of a heterogeneous mixture of thinkers, we will theoretically evolve into a unified intellectual mass, destroying the culture that literature meticulously and methodically worked so hard to create.  As one can readily construe, it is understandable that literary intellectuals such as Birkerts and Carr are frightened by this changing landscape of communication. The written word is their livelihood, their passion, and for Birkerts—seemingly his purpose. Books and prose have provided so many with the benevolent feelings of hope, love, and happiness.  Almost romantically, they are terrified to see it fade. However, as Murray believes, this does not have to be the case. In her words,  “The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible” (Hamlet on Holdeck).  This two-sided aspect to Murray’s approach is what generates its compelling nature. Murray understands that literature and print is an integral rudiment that simultaneously binds and enlightens our culture. Perhaps to find some common ground, I can agree that literature has a profound and important impact on society. It provides information that radiates lessons, morals, and knowledge. In spite of this, literature can be a separate component from books. It is my belief that the new age of media will simply be a more efficient means to spread this wholesome feature of literature.  In Murray’s words, the “book is an attempt to imagine a future digital medium, shaped by the hacker’s spirit and the enduring power of the imagination and worthy of the rapture our children are bringing to it“(Hamlet).  Just as the car replaced the horse, the computer is modernizing the book. As readers, we will ultimately end up in the same place, except now at a faster rate.

            If there is anything to extract from this argument, it is that the preservation of literature is an important topic that both liberal and conservative thinkers deeply care about.  However, the inevitability of change due to fresh and futuristic electrical mediums will certainly alter the game. In this upcoming age, new breeds of hyper- mediated books may even become the popular approach to reading. In an optimistic light, we should believe in what is next for the written word. Although change is happening rapidly, it will be interesting to see where evolution will take our identities and our literature.  

            

The Medium is the Massage blog

English Blog Medium Is the Massage

           

 

            The Medium is the Massage is a hyper-mediated text that is uniquely crafted by Marshall McLuhan. The novel’s purpose is to convey McLuhan’s opinion on the effect of technology and media in the modern age.  Interestingly, this author presents his argument as an assortment of seemingly miscellaneous pictures, prose, outside quotations, and historical allusions.  For the audience, this hodgepodge of information simulates the effect of mass media, as it shocks and amplifies our senses at a fast pace.  In an original and cleverly organized argument, I believe the purpose of this piece is to accentuate McLuhan’s hypothesis that the medium in which mankind obtains their information has a greater impact than the material itself.

            At the crux of his argument, McLuhan exploits a quote by the famous artist, Bob Dylan.  In this quotation Bob Dylan states, “Because something is happening but you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mister Jones” (Medium is the Massage). In this virtually omniscient statement, McLuhan applies the words of Bob Dylan to his own theory on the future of technology, media and man (Keywords).  Specifically, this writer is attempting to depict the opinion that informative mediums, and the manner in which man is conceiving information, are stimulating enormous changes that are obscure and difficult to understand. In this novel McLuhan largely emphasizes the effect that our senses have on us as learners and individuals. Precisely, this work touches on the older methodology of using print to communicate ideas. Since the sense of sight is the integral sense used to comprehend the medium of print, McLuhan believes that there is a correlation between reading and our visual creativity. However, in the modern and futuristic generation, television and moving pictures have become the popular approach to communicating stories and ideas.  Although print has yet to become extinguished, the newer media techniques change the way in which we apply our brain to absorb information. Because of this, we are inadvertently and unknowingly changing the way in which we think. According to McLuhan, this interconnected style of media is conforming individuals into a more uniformed mixture of people.  Therefore, resorting back to the message of Bob Dylan, change is occurring, but we are not sure how or what it is doing.  There are certainly ways that one can speculate or hypothesize this change, but there is no genuine measurement.  Despite this, it is important to recognize the inevitability of change so that society has the potential to regulate it.

            Although, The Medium is the Massage orchestrates a compelling argument about media and technology, it also has its limits. For instance, it is crucial to understand that the foundation of this argument is opinion-based. This means that McLuhan’s statements and speculations are just that. They are not backed by anything but personal bias and educated guesses. There is no scientific experiments or data that suggest that our thinking mechanisms are changing as a result of mass media bombardment. Additionally, one can speculate that McLuhan’s account contains biases based on his occupation as a literary professor. Because of his close involvement with literature, the tone of this text appears frantic and all-knowing, which can be misleading for the audience.

            Despite the personal biases behind McLuhan’s argument, The Medium Is The Massage bestows a plausible theory on the effects of new media in the coming age. This is an argument that society must carefully analyze and investigate because the future of mankind’s evolution lies heavily in our engagement with media. As McLuhan points out, change is coming, but we must find a way to govern it.     

           

           

 

Prometheus In Novels

Scott Weisman

Prometheus in Novels

 

The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick is a hyper mediated text that encompasses an abundance of universal themes.  Utilizing a unique and uncommon literary effect, Selznick largely applies images to compliment his prose. As the invention of films is a significant vocal point in this piece, the pictorial effect exploited in this composition is fitting because it emanates the feeling that the audience is watching a movie.  After recently reading and analyzing the allusion of Prometheus in Frankenstein, I followed The Invention of Hugo Cabret through the same thread. Despite the similar Promethean archetype that was depicted in both of these texts, I argue that Selznick’s interpretation of Prometheus is optimistic in comparison to Shelley’s. As a result, this portrays the authors’ conflicting viewpoints on the topic of technology.  

            Briefly, The Invention of Hugo Cabret is a narrative about a twelve-year-old boy named Hugo, who loses his father at a young age.  His only remaining family member was a drunken uncle that adopted him, and taught him the craft of fixing clocks in a train station. Shortly after Hugo learned this trade, his Uncle abandoned him, leaving him to survive on his own.  All that Hugo had left was an automaton that he and his father were passionately restoring. Hugo believed that if he could mend the automaton, then he would find closure in his father’s death. However, after Hugo was caught stealing parts from Papa George’s toy store, he was heaved into the midst of a mystery that began and ended in his obsession with this machine.

            Although there are a multitude of meanings and themes that stem from these authors’ references to Prometheus, I am suggesting that the key reasoning behind this allusion is to link the fate of humanity with technology. In Frankenstein, the Promethean character was Victor. Victor is referred to as the modern day casting of Prometheus because he endured a life that was plagued with struggle after creating his infamous Monster.  At the novel’s core, Victor’s demise arrives from the direct result of the technology that he produced. In examination of this evidence in the plot, one can hypothesis that Shelley has a dim view on the subject of technology and knowledge.  On the other hand, in The Invention of Hugo Cabret, Hugo represents the Promethean archetype. Similar to the mythological character of Prometheus, Hugo invents a man-like figure by assembling its broken fragments. Like Prometheus, Hugo was punished for stealing in his efforts to complete and perfect his creation. Although the foundation established in these tales is alike, the distinction originates in how the novelists choose to end their story.  As Frankenstein resolves in tragedy, The Invention of Hugo Cabret ends in savior and happiness. In the words of Papa George, “Prometheus was rescued in the end. His chains were broken, and he was finally set free” (Hugo 494).  Ultimately, Hugo was recued by his invention, or the technology that he assembled.

            As one can identify, both the novels of Frankenstein, and The Invention of Hugo Cabret follow the Greek myth of Prometheus. However, due to the opposite resolutions found in these works, it is clear that Shelley and Selznick possess dissimilar philosophies on technology. In one instance, technology acted as mankind’s assassin, while on the other it corresponded with humanity’s liberator. As an audience member of both these compositions it is crucial that we examine these messages critically. According to these writer’s, technology can either be our life or our death.

 

 

           

 

 

Technology and Frankenstein, Project 2.

Scott Weisman

Prometheus and Frankenstein

 

            In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley incorporates a plethora of allusions in her prose. These references to other significant texts interconnect with the applied themes for the piece at hand.   In relation to the improvised term “intertexuality,” Frankenstein’saudience must employ an intimate and careful reading of this work in order to grasp Shelly’s implied meanings and theses. As I examined the piece, I analyzed the context in relation to the thread of Prometheus, the Greek Mythological Titan. Through the comparison of these literary compositions, I argue that Mary Shelley’s theme in Frankenstein is the sinister conveyance that knowledge and technology will ultimately lead to suffering of humanity.

            Correlating with the significance of interactive reading, Mary Shelley directly introduces Prometheus on the cover page as a seemingly alternative title for the piece.  As the author attempts to convey the parallel between the Grecian mythical character and her own narrative, it is crucial for the reader to identify the Mythology of Prometheus in order to comprehend the intellectual merit of Frankenstein. Shelley’s suggestion of Prometheus refers to the Greek character that “molded mankind out of clay in the image of the Gods, to gratify Uranus.” In the process, Prometheus became the father of man and developed an emotional compassion for these original creatures. In an attempt to educate and convene their animalistic state of existence, Prometheus transferred the knowledge of basic tool building skills to his human children. As Zeus became paranoid at the futuristic potential for man to conflict and war with the Gods, he preferred for these beings to remain technologically oblivious. In spite of Zeus’s requests, Prometheus stole fire and presented it to humanity, providing them with the aptitude for the birth of science and technology. As this betrayed the powerful God Zeus, he was sentenced an eternity of immortal suffering. Specifically, Prometheus was condemned to a rock, and was forced to withstand having his inners eaten by an Eagle everyday.  (Downing Central)

            As the myth of Prometheus is a tragedy, the tale of Frankenstein follows a homogenous pattern. In Shelley’s narrative, Victor enacts the modern day role of the Greek Giant as he endeavored into the obscure and dark scientific art of creation.  Similar to Prometheus, he constructed a unique conception in the Godly image of himself, making him the theoretical father of a new species. According to Victor, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent creatures would owe their being to me” (Mary Shelley 58). As these plots are relatively compliant, Victor’s reality ensued a lifelong punishment of suffering and torment as his benevolently intended creation backfired. Although Prometheus was literally chained to a life of misery, Victor was symbolically bonded to a life cursed with guilt and death. As a result of these striking resemblances it is a logical observation that if one can identify the plot of Prometheus, then they can fathom the literature of Frankenstein as well.

            As one can detect, Mary Shelley intensively pursued her allusion to Greek mysticism in this piece.  Nonetheless, for the audience of this story, it is significant to engage in “intertexuality,” and decipher her reasoning for this pursuit.  If one’s interpretation is like a word puzzle, then they must factor out the extraneous information, and identify the pieces that fit together in both of these tales.  From an observational standpoint, the three chief motifs that interconnect and create meaning in this novel are the topics of creation, technology, and consequences.

In association with the first motif, both Prometheus and Victor intended on producing stunning and Godly species. In Victor’s initial interface with his grotesque invention, he asserted, “ His limbs were in proportion, and I selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!”(Shelley 60). Despite that both of these creators indulged in the technological procedures of completing their conceptions, it ultimately concluded in their downfall.  Although these fragments come together to form Shelley’s final thesis that knowledge causes suffering, she contemplates both sides of the argument throughout her literature.  For instance, upon the Monster’s primary interaction with the element of fire, he claimed, “I was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How Strange, I thought that the same cause should produce such opposite effects” (Mary Shelley 97).  In this passage, Victor’s construction observed the positive attributes associated with fire, mankind’s most primitive form of technology.  The creation realized that the production of fire enlightened, enhanced, and comforted his existence through its ability to cook food and generate warmth. However, in a momentous literary effect, Victor’s invention noticed that upon touching the fire, a sensation of pain was induced. This is at the most simple form, the controversial debate of technology. In explanation, fire or technology can either be exploited for destruction, or it can be applied to sophisticate and better manhood.  Since at its core, Frankenstein is a tragedy caused by science, rationality would suggest that Shelley identifies with the pessimistic side of this argument.  In fact, Shelley’s consistent references to the purity of nature points to her extremely conservative belief that humanity is at its best in its primitive form. In Victor’s words, “learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow”(Mary Shelley 57). Almost cliché-like, Shelley advocates that as mankind becomes increasingly ignorant, they also become progressively blissful. 

            Succeeding the analysis of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and the Grecian myth Prometheus, it is crucial to question the future of society and mankind.  Knowledge and technology is a mechanism that has been utilized in the evolutionary process of humanity. Similar to Victor’s monster, it has brought humankind out of the cold dark, and into the warm light. If there is any message for the audience to extract from this work, it is that technology is a double-edged sword. In the modern-day context, society’s knowledge has advanced to the point where it can be employed to fuel entire cities, or used to destroy them. Ultimately we must ask how far should we take technology? Is the advancement of technology the foreshadowing of our era’s demise?

           

 

Reflection for project 2

 

I think that I have a sturdy ideological basis for my argument. I believe that I can work on adding textual support to back up my viewpoint.  In the future I can possibly compose a philosophical debate about technology and the future of mankind.

 

           

           

Works Cited

“Mrs. Dowling’s Mythology Unit- The Story of Prometheus and How He Gives Fire To Man.” Mrs. Dowling’s Mythology Unit-The Story of Prometheus and How He Gives Fire To Man. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. <http://www.dowlingcentral.com/MrsD/area/unitthemes/myth/prometheus.html>.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Diana Gibson. Frankenstein. Madrid, España: Edimat Libros, 2000. Print.