Hi,

A few interjections into an interesting conversation.

I think that electronic text is, at one and the same time, limiting and
extending - the electronic field on which text maybe written, can be
of -infinite- X & Y axii. However, the normal tools usually anchor the top
left corner. I'm interested in tools that treat the browser as a eye-glass
moving across a infinite Euclidean plane (or moving the plane under the
eyeglass). Hyperlinks add depth, don't they? Consider the WWW as one giant
document, the links within documents of no -material- differerence to links
external to a document...and everything is just data.

The -computer- tools we use often embody metaphors whose structures
limit/extend our actions in performance. A few metaphors from other
mechanical worlds continue to inhabit the bright shiny electronic tools we
use ("channels", "radio buttons", "tabs" etc etc). Unlike mechanical tools
like typewriters, the computer interface is almost infinite malleablility,
but the programmers often insist on carrying over "familiarity" - those
thumb-wheel-buttons are coming to an interface near you any day. Whether
these inhibit or extend, I don't know.

The limits can also be felt at the basic level of coding language - to take
an extreme example, in the UTF standard which will help define the next
generation email clients for example, several dialects of Chinese were left
out (interestling, Klingon was included) and quite a few dialects were
treated to a "smoothing-down" due to the limits of coding within 16 bit (or
is it 32?, my memory plays tricks) characters - means that with regards to
text generated electronically, we always operate with the confines of what
the tools can do, but also that we are subject to a standardising (an
homogenising?) of communication within the tool. I think that technology in
general standardises, and in the process of the standards being set, change
happens. Maybe this is overstated and how far this materially matters I
don't know. But, i've often asked my self, is technology one of the reasons
why written english is different from spoken? Technology as a drag anchor
for language?

----- Original Message -----
From: steve duffy <[log in to unmask]>
To: british-poets <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 October 1999 16:00
Subject: Re: Technology and language change


>
> Dear Billy, i will take the bait, but not too zealously, i hope.
>
> >> And of course the technology used to create text will influence the
> >> text, usually by imposing limitations on what can be done. For
> >> instance, I remain to be convinced that there is much real difference
> >> between clicking a hyperlink and turning a page, apart from the fact
> >> that the former is usually slower.
>
> If we limit ourselves to the concept of the paper page in our use of the
> electronic page then, as you say, the difference between the two is not
> great.
>
> But the electronic page is capable of far more than than the paper page.
> It is in effect a program which can combine text and other elements, and
> those elements can be animated or written dynamically in various ways,
> either predetermined by poet/programmer or triggered by the actions of the
> reader/visitor. The degree of interactivity could range from zero to
> co-authorship. The electronic page may also be linked to numerous related
> pages, resources, which are accessible at a click. The "mailto" link is
> very common and "chat rooms" are now being offered at some sites, thus
> increasing the possibilities of "networking" (sharing and learning).
>
> >> As I see it, there are three basic attitudes to IT, zeal, Ludditism or
> >> scepticism. Personally, I go for the last of these. It is the duty of
> >> the converted to convince us of the superiority of technology lead
> >> writing. Frankly, most of what I've seen so far has failed to do so,
> >> for me at least. Wish I could spend more time on this, but lunch is
> >> long over.
>
> I've never heard anyone claim that "technology lead" writing is superior.
> I _have_ heard it said that the electronic page is a new medium in which
> poetry will thrive.

umm. People make the thriving - poetry is the perfect light-weight genre to
be carried over the wire.

> Electronic poetry does require a slightly different approach. For
instance,
> (a minor thing, or is it?) the paper page is deeper than it is wide
whereas
> the screen is invariably wider than it is deep and scrolling is a chore.
> The "endless" vertical two-dimensional array of the paper page requires
> the "endless" vertical two-dimensional array of the paper poem. The
> process of writing a poem usually involves creating such an array before
> publication is ever thought about. The possibilities of the electronic
> page would obviously be limited by such an approach.
>
> Sorry to mix threads but, as Ric said today in his post "the education of
> desire":
>
> >> For me this links directly into the earlier discussion about the
> >> role of performance, particularly of performances which open
> >> possibilities for audiences, rather than simply serving as delivery
> >> vehicles for texts: "you do the thinking".
>
> I suppose i would fall into your converted catagory but i have always
> thought of writing as programming, the performance as "run" time. To me,
> writing for the pixel page means writing for an interface which is
> endlessly adaptable and which does not impose such things as architecture,
> or even completion, in quite the same way as writing for the paper page.

I'm coming to the conclusion that each poem has it's own interface
regardless of whether it's on the Silver Bucket or no. It only becomes more
obvious.

Roger.





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%