mez on 15 Jan 2001 19:08:09 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] _ _ [nette.wurk15]12..08..96

Session Start: Mon Aug 12 09:41:43 1996
*** Now talking in #enslog
#enslog created on Wed Aug 12 08:25:56
<Sue> got it ti, like a dream"!
<tink> very reasonable..
<amerika> s[hell]fish
<ti> whats for dinner then mark?
<clipper> were back
<ti> thats fantasdtic sue!
<mez> she[elle]fish[ian]
<Sue> congrayts!
<ti> so good so good, no mirrors!
<amerika> tofu pups
<mez> bac to fish a-gain
<amerika> how does that translate?
<Sue> and with that i am sliding into bed
<mez> knight sue :)

][netwurkian ][k][nights @ wurk][

>Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:04:35
>From: mez <>
>Subject: Re: Recombinant Poetics
>N.Katherine Hayles wrote:
>>when I read a hypertext fiction (let's say, Shelley Jackson's "Patchwork
Girl") I am >not quite willing to put in the same amount of effort, because
I expect that many of >the juxtapositions that I as a reader can create will
not be
>>particularly significant, at least in ways that I can find meaningful.
>As a writer who is currently engaging in creating work that has been
niche-labelled as hypertext [HT] fiction  [i prefer the terminology
cyberhybrid writing myself], I need to ask a few qs and raise a few points:
>1. Why is it that HT fiction can provoke this type of confusion within a
reader? Is it just this lack of an atypical narrative structure
[disemboweling the narrative has such a nice ring to it] &/or the actual
structural/physical/mechanical differences encountered within the text
itself [hyperlinks etc]? 

<amerika> I luv Oz
<ti> come back soon then
<clipper> please do!
<amerika> OK, give me a sec here -- I am a SLOW typist
<clipper> thanks MA
<amerika> I will come back soon, I can promise you that!
<ti> msg clipper can you start logging this? i have to go...
<ti> oops!
<clipper> i think i have been logging it all if i have this progra right!
<ti> tink can you log too just in case?
<mez> i'm logging
<tink> I got it though I missed the begiinning
<ti> thanks mez
<clipper> i just checked the logging seems fine
* mez has to mezander outta here and het 2 wurk *grOan*
<mez> het=get
<clipper> homo to work mez
<tink> what a pain mez

>2. I choose to write my style of fiction [using a multimedia format] in
order to _enhance_ a possible fragmentation of predictable reader reactions
- which, of course, can alienate certain readers who may want to have the
conventions [read:canon] of traditional fiction echoed in the hypertext
realm. That is, if a reader/viewer/inter-actor expects to have invisibly
crafted cues/clues/concept arrows concretely embedded/foregrounded in the
fiction itself in order to enhance meaning or signification, why bother
trying to grapple with new types of fiction/function?  Hopefully some
audience entities will make that effort to personalize the experience of
engaging a HT work, and not just seek out/demand a series of signifiers or
overall meaning/s...["but what does it MEAN?"] Surely this effort of
_finding_ that connection point must be a reward in itself. Whatever
happened to the notion of reader/viewer actually participating in/cogitating
upon a work, and making an overt effort in order to glean something from it?
>     -mz prepaste modemism herself (aka mez)


15cords of the replete past][e][ings makin][ings in the mold,
1_____5removal of naive mundanities, 


Nettime-bold mailing list