Electronic Literature Chapter 1 and "Electronic Literature: What is it?"

In the first chapter of Electronic Literature by Scott Rettberg and the article "Electronic Literature: What is it?" both of the authors introduce the advancement and growth of electronic literature. I think that Rettberg did a good job at introducing the topic and showing how it sends a different message than printed literature. A physical book could be published online, but it would be impossible to print electronic literature works, because of how much liberty and freedom electronic media gives authors. There are so many different ways to create electronic literature whether it be through audio, video, or images. These forms cannot be translated onto paper and give the same message to the reader. Hayles explains how it has been challenging for authors to use plot devices like rising tension and conflict, which has resulted in experimentation. Both the chapter and the article show how creative and expansive electronic literature is. There is no limit to how creative and interactive these kinds of works can be. However, over time some pieces can become unreadable because of advancements in technology. Some software and hardware may become obsolete, making it impossible to preserve these pieces of literature.

Hayles referenced Shelley Jackson's work "Patchwork Girl," which I saw we are going to be reading later in the semester. I found an article about her from The New Yorker in which she briefly talks about electronic literature. She said that reading the novel Moby-Dick on an iPhone changes the experience. "We gain a sense of the sleekness of water, of the depths concealed beneath its bright and changing surface, and above all its reflectivity, so important to Melville that he positioned the story of Narcissus in his first paragraph. (So it is not a simple matter of one medium being better or worse, more evocative or less, than another. Different matter, different meaning.) We lose, on the other hand, all the weight of the whale. We lose the feeling of dissecting its great mass, slice by slice. We lose our tactile measure of our slow progress through it." In other words, because the experience of reading is different, the story is interpreted differently. What do you think about this? Do you disagree? Is one medium more impactful than the other?

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/shelley-jackson-author-and-advocate-of-the-monstrous

Meg