Revised Essay – Self-Reflection

In revising my Frankenstein essay, I attempted to, much like Frankenstein himself, stitch together the old pieces of my former essay and give them new life. I blended my discussion on the motif of mutability in Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s apparent warning against experimenting without caution with my third essay in which I argue that the changing landscape of technological writing demands that a writer make conscious and cautious choices in regards to their medium. I used some parts of the third essay but mostly relied on the concepts from that piece with most the work coming from my second essay and new forwarding of these ideas. The story of Frankenstein itself is a mutable one that has been retold in different media throughout the years, so in revising I decided to add more close reading into technological texts outside the original Frankenstein novel. Instead of mere close reading, I believe that examining this text and its later multimedia descendants with a more critical eye would be an interesting direction to take this essay. I worked to draw a parallel between the fictional scientist and the modern-day new media writer in the way that they must be cautious of their medium in their experimentation. I wanted to revise this essay because I believed that I had more to say in terms of the story of Frankenstein, especially in light of our later discussion of new media. I mostly worked on forwarding my ideas and expanding the range of my analysis for this project. I also worked on adding a critical voice to my essay by including Marshall McLuhan’s analysis on new media and its effect on the message of the work. Mostly, the revisions within the final essay reflect the forwarding of ideas that I attempted in reaching out beyond the original context of the novel. In essence, what I was attempting through this project was to extend my thinking beyond the novel itself and examine its message in the context of its changing medium.
Looking back on the “to-do list” that I created on the first day of class, a few of the areas that I wished to improve upon were exposure to different structures and forms of writing. I believe that I achieved this goal by attempting to go beyond the techniques that I might usually use in an essay. I experimented more with personal reflection through the first and third writing projects and with the electronic medium in my blog. I am also still working on sentence variety, complexity, and interest. We focused in class on varying sentence length, but I also want to work on varying phrases and clauses and the general structure of my sentences. In the coming semesters at Washington College I will continue to work on my “to-do list” through these changes and by gaining more experience in varying academic disciplines. Part of writing is opening oneself up to unexplored subject areas and gaining knowledge in a variety of fields in order to further one’s ability to critically analyze and respond to the world around him. Overall, a goal for me to keep in mind is to become more varied and well-rounded – both in my writing and my thinking.

Revised Essay – Frankenstein Texts

“We rest; a dream has power to poison sleep.
We rise one hand wand’ring thought pollutes the day.
We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep,
Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away;
It is the same; for, be it joy or sorrow,
The path of its departure still is free.
Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like this morrow;
Nought may endure but mutability!”
– Percy Shelley’s “Mutability” quoted in Frankenstein

Stories are highly mutable, they shift and change with each retelling as they are forwarded; every new idea is essentially a retelling of an old concept. The same is true of new media. Hypertexts, videos, audio essays are all extensions of the physical print and page novel which is an extension of the oral tradition of story-telling. Writers working in new media are essentially modern-day Frankensteins, stitching together new life from old raw materials. The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley served as a warning against mutability and change, and as new media grows and the story of Frankenstein begins to shift into video and hyperlink forms, how does this change the story of the ill-fated creator and his woeful creature? Permanence not only becomes an impossibility within the confines of Frankenstein’s experience but also in the way the novel has been perceived and retold. The instability in this text, which is represented by Frankenstein’s various misfortunes and life changes, extends to its creation and evolution. Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein existed as a short horror story, evolving and changing into a rumination on the nature of humanity, mutability, and hubris. It has now taken on new life in electronic media. The motif of mutability in the novel Frankenstein has taken on even greater significance in this evolving realm of new media writing, creating a cautionary tale for the new media writer. He must be mindful of what he sends out into the world.
Within Shelley’s novel, the poem “Mutability” serves to highlight an essential theme throughout the novel – that every aspect of one’s life is subject to change. Victor’s moods are a highly changeable state throughout the novel, representing the fragility that his actions have caused. At the time his monster is created after great toil and struggle, he suddenly grows despondent, and the young scientist notes, “the different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature” (Shelley, Frankenstein 60). Realizing that even in overcoming the most seemingly permanent aspect of life – death – Victor perceives that human moods are still far more fickle. Additionally, Frankenstein refers to the “accidents” of life, although his creation of the monster seems intensely deliberate. In this way, Frankenstein distances himself from the choice he has made to create the monster, blaming instead his fickle feelings. However, from Frankenstein’s eventual fate, the author implies that choice plays a large role in the mutability of life and that one cannot distance himself from the choices he makes in changing the world around him. As a result of his choices, Frankenstein descends into what appears almost to be a sort of madness, which Elizabeth notes as “an expression of despair, and sometimes revenge” (Shelley, Frankenstein 88), followed by the inner peace he feels during his excursion into the wilderness is what prompts the inclusion of this poem as a commentary on the transience of objects and states. Frankenstein claims that his heart “before sorrowful, now swelled with something like joy” (Shelley, Frankenstein 92). From the juxtaposition of these two mental states, Frankenstein emotions seem deeply instable and subject to change, highlighting Shelley’s undercurrent of mutability, which extends to the tenuous connection between life and death. The lives taken from Frankenstein, young William and Justine, also become reminders of a changing world wherein today may bear no resemblance to tomorrow, and the choices on makes impacts those around him. William, the youngest brother of Frankenstein’s family, dies, presumably at the hands of the creature which Frankenstein creates, and Justine is hanged on suspicion of his murder. Both cases are of very young lives, which are full of opportunity, taken before their potential can be fulfilled. Upon receiving the news of William’s death Frankenstein laments: “One sudden and desolating change had taken place; but a thousand little circumstances might have by degrees worked other alterations, which although they were done more tranquilly, might not be the less decisive” (Shelley, Frankenstein 74). While acknowledging the shock of his brother’s death, the scientist also ruminates on the nature of small changes in everyday life, imperceptible but none the less devastating when amassed into one. In pointing out the inevitability of small changes within his life, Frankenstein acknowledges that some change is inevitable. However, in juxtaposing these small changes with the larger shock of William’s death, he suggests that the result of his hubris is far more detrimental than any other everyday mutability. In this idea one can perceive a type of warning for pushing change upon the world. Frankenstein pays for tampering with the seemly permanent force of death with the lives of the young who, for them, life still seems almost permanent because they yet have so much life to live. Not only do Frankenstein’s actions cause the creator inner turmoil but he also causes great pain and suffering to those around him, reinforcing the concept of caution when dealing with matters of change, which become even more pronounced when dealing with matters of science and technology.
The internal and external mutability of Frankenstein’s world mirror that of scientific advancements of his time and of the changeability the text itself has witnessed in the face of technological progress. Both Frankenstein and his foil, Robert Walton, experiment in new advancements in the fields of natural science and exploration respectively, and both risk the lives of others in their thirst for novelty and knowledge. However, Walton is ultimately spared from a fate similar to Frankenstein’s loss. At the outset of Walton’s journey into the Arctic he asks, “Why not still proceed over the untamed yet obedient element? What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man” (Shelley, Frankenstein 34)? Immediately following this daring exclamation, Walton comes upon Frankenstein, a haunted man seeking revenge who has already experienced the horrors of his own resolved will, lacking in concern for caution much like Walton’s own adventurous spirit. The contrasting visions Shelley presents of these two men, seeming so much alike and yet so different, presents a warning. For Walton the danger is yet ahead, while for Frankenstein, his downfall has already come to pass. Frankenstein, at times, urges Walton forward but deters him from making a mistake similar to his own, seeking experimentation at the cost of caution. Walton eventually turns back, ignoring his friend’s urgings, making an argument for permanence in regards to the boundaries that man is not meant to cross, sparing his men and himself from further horrors. A parallel can be drawn between the scientific advances in the novel and the technological ones that impact the novel. The way in which text is produced is changing rapidly and opens up new opportunities for writers to experiment with hypertext, video, and audio writing projects. Not only is mutability in technology a theme within Frankenstein but it is also present in the changing world of the novel.
The story of Frankenstein has mutated from its original medium. It is no longer only a book, but also takes the shape of movies and hypertext. Since the story’s original conception, it has not yet ceased evolving to meet the needs and demands of a new generation. The current common conceptions of the Frankenstein narrative, reinforced by movies and popular culture of the electronic age, involve a grotesque green creature, incapable of thought and seemingly stitched together with the very worst of materials. In the Frankenstein text, however, the monster is crafted from features seen as “beautiful” (Shelley, Frankenstein 60), and although Frankenstein later remarks on the hideous quality these features take, the eloquent swift creature that results from his work does not resemble the slow-moving zombie-like vision usually associated with Frankenstein’s monster. In this way, Shelley’s own “hideous progeny” (Shelley, Frankenstein 25) has taken on an evolving life of its own as it changes to meet the desires of different media of story-telling. It can be said that the life of a novel itself is far from stagnant and unchanging. New media plays a large role in Frankenstein’s mutability. Writers have forwarded the story in new ways that fundamentally change the story. The medium matters in understanding the ever evolving conception of Mary Shelley’s most famous narrative.
The story of Frankenstein has morphed beyond its original print and paper medium, becoming a more compelling case for if technology and advancement opens a Pandora’s Box of problems. Since the publication of Shelley’s novel in 1811, the story has been adapted to numerous other media, including hypertextual websites and a myriad of movies and television versions. In mutating the medium of Frankenstein, one also changes its essential message, as the dangers of technological advancement become a more pronounced theme. In examining the electronic edition of Frankenstein, it becomes clear that the original and the hypertextual versions have different purposes in mind. The electronic version of the story allows the reader to select words or phrases of the text and an explanation or analysis pops up on a separate window of the screen, somewhat obscuring the text (Shelley, Curran, Electronic Frankenstein). It becomes clear that this website is not meant to be a leisurely escape into the story but rather a highly detailed analysis of the text. Marshall McLuhan – author of the book The Medium is the Massage, which itself combines old and new media – argues for awareness of new media in shaping its uses. He asserts that “all media work us over completely” and that mindfulness of how visual and textual pieces work together is important in the technological age (McLuhan 26). The choice of the writer, or in this case the rewriter, is a greater control over how his thoughts and ideas further envelop and “work over” the reader. The medium of the web-based Frankenstein makes it less effective as a story but more effective as an analysis. Different media are meant to influence the reader in different ways. Likewise, video adaptations of Frankenstein tend to distort the story in order to produce a more sensational effect than the novel. In one miniseries adaption, the creation scene is very much extended and furthered in order to put more emphasis on the scientific aspect of his creation (Shelley, Kruger, Frankenstein). Shelley writes in Walton’s voice that “my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open” (Shelley, Frankenstein 60). The author chose to relay to the audience only the product of Frankenstein’s work as opposed to the process. For many film directors working with the story of Frankenstein the process is given greater emphasis with violent flashes of lightning, violent outbursts, and an exclamation of “It’s alive!” Similarly, in the miniseries, the camera sweeps across Frankenstein’s laboratory, showing the instruments and methods of his labors. When working with new media in a video format, the story of Frankenstein is somewhat altered by its medium. The medium is technological, and, thus, more emphasis is put into the idea of technology as an inherent evil. The theme is thus forwarded in order to create a more sensational scene. The purpose of old and new media is not the same, and although the story of Frankenstein was adapted from a novel, it has been stitched together into a new creature that has a different purpose its old collective pieces. This concept is important in determining whether or not the creator has control and understanding over his creation.
Much like Frankenstein’s monster, some new media texts are released into the world without a full understanding of their impact, and mutability once again becomes dangerous to its creator. Mere experiments like these texts are not as successful as ones that have been given deliberate thought and care. A parallel can be drawn to Frankenstein’s own experiment in “authorship.” He resolves, “contrary to [his] first invention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height and proportionately large” (Shelley, Frankenstein 58). One could say that Frankenstein was unaware in this instance of how his medium, a monstrously large, potentially violent creature, would affect his purpose, to bring loved ones back from the dead. Similar to Frankenstein, writers often experiment in this genre in a way that is not effective for their purpose. For example, in an article entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid by Nicolas Carr, the author argues against new media, partially because it is misused by authors. Of the internet, Carr notes that “it injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed…the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration” (Carr). The internet has become the ultimate mutable medium, but some writers have yet to learn how to use this tool. Certainly, some of these experiments in hypertext deserve to have stayed on the laboratory floor, so once again one my return to Shelly’s warning. Mutability in Frankenstein’s life ultimately results in despair for himself and his family because he does not exercise caution. These writers must learn from his mistakes and be more aware of this new medium. As illustrated by the mutations through which the Frankenstein text has evolved, electronic media is meant to perform different tasks than print media. In order for writers to adapt to mutability in the literary world, they must learn from the mistakes of Frankenstein.
Mutability plays a large part within the novel of Frankenstein and in the changing world of new media that has forwarded the story into new areas and has created a whole new monster. New media authors have, in some way, assumed the role of the ill-fated scientist. Frankenstein becomes a cautionary tale for new media. With the wide range of choice available to writers, they need to be cautious of their medium and of what they are sending out into the world. Frankenstein may be one of the most poignant examples of the forwarding of the old into the new, but it is not the only one. For example, the story of “Little Red Riding Hood” has been adapted into a hipper version with an interactive hypertext. The high-tech medium transforms the sweet young girl into a cooler, more modern version, a satire on the genre (Leishman). This example is obviously merely a taste of all that new media is forwarding for a modern, tech-savvy generation, but it is clear that it follows the trajectory of many of its fellow online texts. Frankenstein, Red Riding Hood, and other fictional characters are given new life from the page of a book to the screen of a computer. The lives of humans and books are immutable in their mutability.

Works Cited
Carr, Nicolas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 24 Apr.
2013.
Leishman, Donna. “RedRidinghood.” Elierature. N.p., 2001. Web. 3 May 2013.
MacLuhan, Marshall. The Medium Is the Message. Corte Madera: Gingko Pr., 2005. Print.
Shelley, Mary, and Mark Kruger. “Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. Prod. Robert Haimi Jr. Dir. Kevin Conner. Hallmark. 2004. Television.
Shelley, Mary and Stuart Curran. “Frankenstein – Electronic Editions – Romantic Circles.
Romantic Circles. University of Maryland, n.d. Web. 1 May 2013.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
Alex Smythe

Secondary Original Essay – Reading the Elecronic Medium

When I was in middle school, teaches taught cursive touted it as a necessity for writing in high school and college. Fearing that all would be lost if I did not exactly replicate each and every loop and curl, I practiced along with the other students and was surprised when upon reaching high school, not a single teacher asked for any assignment written in cursive. It was rare that teachers asked for a handwritten sheet at all; they took points off if it was not typed. The developed world is moving away from pen and paper, and even printed novels and newspapers are produced at a keyboard. The electronic age has transformed daily life, especially in regards to reading and writing. We have seemed to readily accept every new media forms with open arms, sometimes with a disregard for its proper use and implications; this phenomenon urges closer attention. New media writing spans many areas, combining audio, hyperlinks to outside sources, and perhaps video or visual elements as well. Obviously, new diversions can take away from writing, distracting the reader away from the ideas of the writer. However, this distraction is not always evident, and oftentimes, the medium adds weight and dimension to the message. Although the medium does not always (but indeed should) enhance the message, the options available to writers and readers through new media has been largely responsible for many worthwhile and compelling creative works that create a more interactive relationship between reader, writer, and text.
A term often associated with electronic media is choice: choice of the reader and of the writer. The reader has more of an active, participatory role in determining not only the interpretation of the text but also the direction the text will lead him. For example, “The Museum,” a hypertextual creation by Adam Kenney allows readers to choose which path they wish to pursue through the museum, mirroring an actual trip to such an institution and the highly subjective and individualized nature of such an experience (Kenney). Obviously, this case is one of many examples of hypertext stories that exist today, but they all give the reader more of a role to play in the reading experience. Choosing which links to follow ultimately determine what message a reader will obtain from the experience and relinquishing some control from the writer. Birkerts argues that placing emphasis on the reader as the paramount participant in the writing process is problematic. He describes his personal horror house which he refers to as a “‘hypertext hotel’” (Birkerts 160) forwarding the term of critic Robert Coover. He explains how both readers and writes can hack the words of the writer, creating new meaning and significance. In his words, technological media deals a “mighty blow to the long-static writer-reader relationship” (163). Birkerts, of course places writer before reader when he writes of the “writer-reader relationship.” The writer, to him, is dominant. The “point” of reading, states Birkerts is “to be subjected to the creative will of another” (163). This statement may be true of print media, and indeed it works well for this form; I often read to get lost in the imagination of another and get out of my own head. However, electronic media often have a different point that the author is trying to get across to his reader, perhaps a point that relies on engaged interaction and individual interpretation. Birkerts’s claim that the writer is always placed above the reader rests on the questionable assumption that the point of electronic media is always the same for print media. Returning to “The Museum,” one can see that the message of the author his enhanced by his medium. The choice of the reader is important in mirroring the engagement one has in a museum experience. In this way, the purpose of a blog or an electronic essay is often different than in novels or journals; they rely on choice and interactivity to derive their message. Although the role of the reader in the direction of what is read is evolving, it is not necessarily a negative change.
Likewise, the role of the writer is not always minimized with the introduction of choice. Birkerts attempts to convey that the power of the writer is being diminished. However, one can argue that this authority is merely changing, similar to that of the reader. The wide array of options now available to the writer – including audio, video, hypertexts, and animation – allow the writer to wear multiple hats. He is the writer, the designer, even the editor and the publisher of blogs and websites. Although Birkerts feels that electronic media create a “candy-store array of choices” (160), can one really state that this choice is definitively and undeniably damaging? The connotation of saying that one has the vast options available in a candy store is to say that there are many bright, flashy objects all vying for attention. A kid in a candy store will most likely eat himself into a coma. Obviously, some writers do take the approach, advocating that more is better and the message does not matter. However, these writers are simply not skilled in the medium. Choice, for a writer, can be a powerful tool when used correctly. The appropriate comparison would be a master craftsman who uses a hammer to build a house as opposed to a novice carpenter who uses it to nail his finger to the wall. Marshall McLuhan – author of the book The Medium is the Massage, which itself combines old and new media – argues for awareness of new media. He asserts that “all media work us over completely” and that mindfulness of how visual and textual pieces work together is important in the technological age (McLuhan 26). The choice of the writer is a greater control over how his thoughts and ideas further envelop and “work over” the reader. In addition to “The Museum” which was discussed in association with the writer’s choice, another multimedia writing project “Inanimate Alice,” makes evident the fact the with technology, a text can be enhanced through the writer’s imagination. “Inanimate Alice” follows a young girl’s inner thoughts as her mother takes her to find her father after he has been missing from their base camp for a few days (Pullinger). As a complimentary element to the text which tells the story, the piece also makes use of pictures and music. The medium in this case envelops the reader. When reading, one hears the electronic music that accompanies the girl’s games, and the mindset of the young girl truly comes alive. Through this visual and auditory technology, the writer was able to make the choice of more actively involving the reader in the story for the purpose of invoking some of the childish wonder and fright that this girl is experiencing. The writer, in a way, still retains his creative choice; sometimes this choice involves giving the reader greater control and immersion.
However, some critics, like Birkerts, disapprove of the scope of choice that new media allow the writer and the reader. Choice can be overwhelming to the human mind. If given the option, the mind often wanders and strays, unsure of which path to take. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Nicolas Carr asks if the depth and range that the internet allows is dividing our attention and expanding choice too far. Of the internet, Carr notes that “it injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed…the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration” (Carr). Carr certainly has a point. New media, especially those types that live on the World Wide Web, can be distracting. Sometimes hyperlinks propel the reader forward even before the current passage has been read. However, this type of reading happens with books one reads as well. If the story is uninteresting, one finds himself flipping through pages, looking forward towards the ending. Although surely, the internet divides a reader’s attention and makes concentration, all social ills cannot be placed on electronic media. Sometimes the uses of flashy stunts like the use of hyperlinks are simply gimmicks. Hyperlinks will not help make a dry piece more interesting, but it will make a reader feel more unfocused and thus gives the sense that his attention is being pulled in all directions. Honestly, one cannot take a stand that all electronic writing projects are revolutionary and worthwhile. Some truly are distracting and unexciting. However, one cannot view the whole of the genre by its weakest parts, and unsuccessful use of the medium is the fault of the writer, not of technology. Although this type of writing has been evolving steadily in past years, it has not yet reached the highest level of what it can be. Every medium has flaws and limitations. Print media can be criticized for being too stagnant and inflexible, but it is still useful. In the hands of someone who has a real grasp of the medium, it comes to life. When the medium and the message work together, distraction is not evident because the medium is the message. Electronic media are far from perfect, but it still has a lot to offer for people who understand how to use it.
Writing, as a verb, is expanding and so too must our understanding and use of various writing media. Writing and reading have always had many meanings. One can read a room or read an emotion on someone’s face. A fate is said to be written in the stars just as a novel is written on paper. Writing and reading, as evolving terms, can therefore be extended to new, evolving media. One can read the meaning of a visual image as clearly as it is written in the context of the essay. The practice of drawing meaning from these events expands the reader’s creative mind and brings more choice to both the roles of reader and writer. There will always be pieces of writing that are more successful than another, we as writers must only be mindful of the medium in which we are writing. We, as contemporary Frankensteins, stitching together life from old forms, must just be cautious of what we are sending out into the world, learning from the mistake of the modern-day Prometheus.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
~Alexandria Smythe

Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Carr, Nicolas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Kenney, Adam. “The Museum.” Cyberartsweb. N.p., 4 Apr. 2004. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
MacLuhan, Marshall. The Medium Is the Message. Corte Madera: Gingko Pr., 2005. Print.
Pullinger, Kate. “Inanimate Alice, Episode 1: China.” Electronic Literature Collection. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Primary Original Essay – Mutable Monster, Fickle Frankenstein

“We rest; a dream has power to poison sleep.
We rise one hand wand’ring thought pollutes the day.
We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep,
Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away;
It is the same; for, be it joy or sorrow,
The path of its departure still is free.
Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like this morrow;
Nought may endure but mutability!”
– Percy Shelley’s “Mutability” quoted in Frankenstein

The only immutable aspect of life is its ability to change. One goes through life in a constant state of fluctuation. Everything from textbooks to pop culture magazines displays new or contradicting information. New technology becomes obsolete in two years; a once favorite book is relegated to the bottom shelf of a passionate reader’s collection; age and time devour everything. The only constant aspect of life is inconsistency. This thought, as exemplified by this quote which appears in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, recognizes life as unstable and changing but also comes to embody the prevailing notion of Victor Frankenstein’s world – from his emotions, to his relationships, to his experiments. Although Frankenstein seems at first to be a cautionary tale outlining the dangers of crossing boundaries in science which are not meant for humans to pass into, the motif of mutability is more complex. Shelley’s argument can also be seen as a claim in favor of the inevitability of advancement and progress in which thus Shelley recognizes the impossibility of permanence. However, this understanding is the reason for her apprehension of what such advancement will brings. Although much change happens naturally in the course of day-to-day life, Shelley cautions against mutability in matters that are governed by humans and cared out lightly without thought of consequence by using Frankenstein as a cautionary tale.
The poem which appears in Shelley’s novel is one written by her husband, and it in fact has two different adaptations both titled “Mutability,” one of which serving as the focal point for Shelley’s motif of the changeability in life. Both poems convey similar underlying themes and similar language but still differ, illustrating changeability not only as an overarching theme of the poems but also as a process to which the poem has been subjected. The second poem which is not present in Shelley’s text employs much of the same language and expression but presented in a way that is unlike the other version: “Dream thou—and from thy sleep/Then wake to weep” (P. Shelley). In both poems, the version quoted here and that quoted above, share similar characteristics in their use of sleep, resting and rising, as an indication of the passage of time wherein one day is very unlike the next. The general subject of the two poems is the same, but the way in which it is told varies through language. The poem itself is not an immutable object. One can look at the two poems as the continuation of a life, a living evolving organism. The language, which is parallel to the events in one’s life, differs drastically, though from one version, or one point in time, to another. In looking at the history of the “Mutability” text, it is clear that change is not only an integral aspect of Frankenstein’s narrative, as it will become evident, but of the poems themselves. The poem does not merely exist as a standalone piece or an instance of fleeting rhetorical fancy; it can be applied to the larger issues of the novel as one pulls the lens back from the poem itself to the context of Frankenstein’s emotions, his environment, the state of science and technology at the time, and the larger implications for the novel throughout time.
The inclusion of this stanza from Shelley’s husband’s poem, “Mutability,” encourages deeper analysis into the various aspects of change and impermanence present in Shelley’s novel. Victor’s moods are a highly changeable state throughout the novel, representing the fragility that his actions have caused. At the time his monster is created after great toil and struggle, he suddenly grows despondent, and the young scientist notes, “the different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature” (M. Shelley 60). Realizing that even in overcoming the most seemingly permanent aspect of life – death – Victor perceives that human moods are still far more fickle. Additionally, Frankenstein refers to the “accidents” of life, although his creation of the monster seems intensely deliberate. In this way, Frankenstein distances himself from the choice he has made to create the monster, blaming instead his fickle feelings. However, from Frankenstein’s eventual fate, the author implies that choice plays a large role in the mutability of life and that one cannot distance himself from the choices he makes in changing the world around him. As a result of his choices, Frankenstein descends into what appears almost to be a sort of madness, which Elizabeth notes as “an expression of despair, and sometimes revenge” (M. Shelley 88), followed by the inner peace he feels during his excursion into the wilderness is what prompts the inclusion of this poem as a commentary on the transience of objects and states. Frankenstein claims that his heart “before sorrowful, now swelled with something like joy” (M. Shelley 92). From the juxtaposition of these two mental states, Frankenstein emotions seem deeply instable and subject to change, highlighting Shelley’s undercurrent of mutability. This instability in Frankenstein’s life seems to cause himself and those around him great mental anguish as they search for the source of his distress. In this case and others, changeability is often a part of life but can also cause harm to oneself and those around him when entered lightly into. Although in this case the quoted passage from “Mutability” seems to allude to Frankenstein’s instability in emotion due to it placement in the text, it can also be applied to the larger issues of life and death and seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the young scientist’s existence.
The lives taken from Frankenstein, young William and Justine, also become reminders of a changing world wherein today may bear no resemblance to tomorrow, and the choices on makes impacts those around him. William, the youngest brother of Frankenstein’s family, dies, presumably at the hands of the creature which Frankenstein creates, and Justine is hanged on suspicion of his murder. Both cases are of very young lives, which are full of opportunity, taken before their potential can be fulfilled. Upon receiving the news of William’s death Frankenstein laments: “One sudden and desolating change had taken place; but a thousand little circumstances might have by degrees worked other alterations, which although they were done more tranquilly, might not be the less decisive” (M. Shelley 74). While acknowledging the shock of his brother’s death, the scientist also ruminates on the nature of small changes in everyday life, imperceptible but none the less devastating when amassed into one. In pointing out the inevitability of small changes within his life, Frankenstein acknowledges that some change is inevitable. However, in juxtaposing these small changes with the larger shock of William’s death, he suggests that the result of his hubris is far more detrimental than any other everyday mutability. In this idea one can perceive a type of warning for pushing change upon the world. Frankenstein pays for tampering with the seemly permanent force of death with the lives of the young who, for them, life still seems almost permanent because they yet have so much life to live. Not only do Frankenstein’s actions cause the creator inner turmoil but he also causes great pain and suffering to those around him, reinforcing the concept of caution when dealing with matters of change.
While one perceives the alterations in both Frankenstein’s internal and external environments through his moods and circumstances, one can also pull the lens back farther to examine those in the scientific field and the world at large within Shelley’s novel. Both Frankenstein and his foil, Robert Walton, experiment in new advancements in the fields of natural science and exploration respectively, and both risk the lives of others in their thirst for novelty and knowledge. However, Walton is ultimately spared from a fate similar to Frankenstein’s loss. At the outset of Walton’s journey into the Arctic he asks, “Why not still proceed over the untamed yet obedient element? What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man” (M. Shelley 34)? Immediately following this daring exclamation, Walton comes upon Frankenstein, a haunted man seeking revenge who has already experienced the horrors of his own resolved will, lacking in concern for caution much like Walton’s own adventurous spirit. The contrasting visions Shelley presents of these two men, seeming so much alike and yet so different, presents a warning. For Walton the danger is yet ahead, while for Frankenstein, his downfall has already come to pass. Frankenstein, at times, urges Walton forward but deters him from making a mistake similar to his own, seeking knowledge at the cost of caution. Walton eventually turns back, ignoring his friend’s urgings, making an argument for permanence in regards to the boundaries that man is not meant to cross, sparing his men and himself from further horrors. In this way, Shelley warns of the dangers of forced change in scientific advancement when men push the boundaries of mortality and humanity.
The changes that Frankenstein has caused in his life through his hubris have undoubtedly changed his life for the worse, affecting everything from the inner workings of his mind to the wide world of science and technology, far beyond the everyday instability of human lives. However, permanence not only becomes an impossibility within the confines of Frankenstein’s experience but also in the way the novel has been perceived and retold. The changeability in this text, represented by the poem’s variation and Frankenstein’s fluctuation in mood, family, and scientific boundaries, comes to represent the way in which the narrative has evolved and grown beyond its original story. Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein existed as a short horror story, evolving and changing into a rumination on the nature of humanity, mutability, and hubris. Furthermore, since the story’s original conception, it has not yet ceased evolving to meet the needs and demands of a new generation. The current common conceptions of the Frankenstein narrative involves a grotesque green creature, incapable of thought and seemingly stitched together with the very worst of materials. In the Frankenstein text, however, the monster is crafted from features seen as “beautiful” (M. Shelley 60), and although Frankenstein later remarks on the hideous quality these features take, the eloquent swift creature that results from his work does not resemble the slow-moving zombie-like vision usually associated with Frankenstein’s monster. In this way, Shelley’s own “hideous progeny” (M. Shelley 25) has taken on an evolving life of its own as it changes to meet the desires of different media of story-telling. It can be said that the life of a novel itself is far from stagnant and unchanging. It flows on in the reader’s mind, and even if it is not adapted, as Frankenstein has been, into different forms, the understanding of a novel is a forever shifting and evolving process. One reading of a novel, even by the same reader, may provide different insight than a previous reading. The lives of humans and books are immutable in their mutability.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.
Shelley, Percy B. “Mutability [“The Flower That Smiles To-day”].” The Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Vol. 4. N.p.: n.p., 1839. N. pag. The Poetry Foundation. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
Alexandria Smythe

Final Project Proposal

For this final project I plan to write a revised version of a combination of the second and third writing projects. For my second project, I discussed the novel Frankenstein in terms of mutability, and for my third project, I discussed the increasingly mutable technological writing medium. I would like to discuss how these two ideas are related and how writers are becoming similar to Frankenstein himself in stitching together old modes of writing to create a new creature out of what has come before. Also, I would like to examine the electronic Frankenstein website and discuss the mutability of the text and its usefulness as a new media text. In doing so, I would like to examine how the writer must learn from Frankenstein and exercise caution in sending his creature out into the world, keeping in mind the pitfalls of technological writing media.
To revise my rhetoric, I plan to work on taking an approach in applying Frankenstein to new media discussion. I plan to incorporate some of the methods that Joseph Harris addresses in the fourth chapter of Rewriting: “acknowledging influences,” “turning an approach on itself,” and “reflexivity.” These terms as a whole refer to the process of incorporating critical views into one’s own writing and adding to the discussion of a topic. Ultimately, I want to work more with addressing the critical perspectives that I incorporate into the text and examining where my own perspective fits into this discussion.
In terms of style, for this project’s revision, I would like to work on the variety of my sentences and clauses. I have a tendency to write longer sentences, relying on phrases such as this one to extend my sentences and ideas. This style works well, but I want to experiment with different types of phrases and clauses and work on varying my sentence length. As for grammar, I would also like to vary my sentences in order to avoid the use of “is” and passive sentence phrasing. Overall, I just want to work on rewriting my sentences using different constructions and working to make more active and interesting sentences.

Reading the Electronic Medium

Self-Reflection
I think that I incorporate a couple different views in my essay but am able to utilize them in a way that compliments and complicates (rather than contradicts) my argument. If I were to come back to this project I would elaborate on the conclusion, and to further it, I would combine this essay with my Frankenstein argument to talk about the mutability of reading and writing in electronic and print media.

Reading the Electronic Medium
When I was in middle school, teaches taught cursive touted it as a necessity for writing in high school and college. Fearing that all would be lost if I did not exactly replicate each and every loop and curl, I practiced along with the other students and was surprised when upon reaching high school, not a single teacher asked for any assignment written in cursive. It was rare that teachers asked for a handwritten sheet at all; they took points off if it was not typed. The developed world is moving away from pen and paper, and even printed novels and newspapers are produced at a keyboard. The electronic age has transformed daily life, especially in regards to reading and writing. We have seemed to readily accept every new media forms with open arms, sometimes with a disregard for its proper use and implications; this phenomenon urges closer attention. New media writing spans many areas, combining audio, hyperlinks to outside sources, and perhaps video or visual elements as well. Obviously, new diversions can take away from writing, distracting the reader away from the ideas of the writer. However, this distraction is not always evident, and oftentimes, the medium adds weight and dimension to the message. Although the medium does not always (but indeed should) enhance the message, the options available to writers and readers through new media has been largely responsible for many worthwhile and compelling creative works that create a more interactive relationship between reader, writer, and text.

A term often associated with electronic media is choice: choice of the reader and of the writer. The reader has more of an active, participatory role in determining not only the interpretation of the text but also the direction the text will lead him. For example, “The Museum,” a hypertextual creation by Adam Kenney allows readers to choose which path they wish to pursue through the museum, mirroring an actual trip to such an institution and the highly subjective and individualized nature of such an experience (Kenney). Obviously, this case is one of many examples of hypertext stories that exist today, but they all give the reader more of a role to play in the reading experience. Choosing which links to follow ultimately determine what message a reader will obtain from the experience and relinquishing some control from the writer. Birkerts argues that placing emphasis on the reader as the paramount participant in the writing process is problematic. He describes his personal horror house which he refers to as a “‘hypertext hotel’” (Birkerts 160) forwarding the term of critic Robert Coover. He explains how both readers and writes can hack the words of the writer, creating new meaning and significance. In his words, technological media deals a “mighty blow to the long-static writer-reader relationship” (163). Birkerts, of course places writer before reader when he writes of the “writer-reader relationship.” The writer, to him, is dominant. The “point” of reading, states Birkerts is “to be subjected to the creative will of another” (163). This statement may be true of print media, and indeed it works well for this form; I often read to get lost in the imagination of another and get out of my own head. However, electronic media often have a different point that the author is trying to get across to his reader, perhaps a point that relies on engaged interaction and individual interpretation. Birkerts’s claim that the writer is always placed above the reader rests on the questionable assumption that the point of electronic media is always the same for print media. Returning to “The Museum,” one can see that the message of the author his enhanced by his medium. The choice of the reader is important in mirroring the engagement one has in a museum experience. In this way, the purpose of a blog or an electronic essay is often different than in novels or journals; they rely on choice and interactivity to derive their message. Although the role of the reader in the direction of what is read is evolving, it is not necessarily a negative change.

Likewise, the role of the writer is not always minimized with the introduction of choice. Birkerts attempts to convey that the power of the writer is being diminished. However, one can argue that this authority is merely changing, similar to that of the reader. The wide array of options now available to the writer – including audio, video, hypertexts, and animation – allow the writer to wear multiple hats. He is the writer, the designer, even the editor and the publisher of blogs and websites. Although Birkerts feels that electronic media create a “candy-store array of choices” (160), can one really state that this choice is definitively and undeniably damaging? The connotation of saying that one has the vast options available in a candy store is to say that there are many bright, flashy objects all vying for attention. A kid in a candy store will most likely eat himself into a coma. Obviously, some writers do take the approach, advocating that more is better and the message does not matter. However, these writers are simply not skilled in the medium. Choice, for a writer, can be a powerful tool when used correctly. The appropriate comparison would be a master craftsman who uses a hammer to build a house as opposed to a novice carpenter who uses it to nail his finger to the wall. Marshall McLuhan – author of the book The Medium is the Massage, which itself combines old and new media – argues for awareness of new media. He asserts that “all media work us over completely” and that mindfulness of how visual and textual pieces work together is important in the technological age (McLuhan 26). The choice of the writer is a greater control over how his thoughts and ideas further envelop and “work over” the reader. In addition to “The Museum” which was discussed in association with the writer’s choice, another multimedia writing project “Inanimate Alice,” makes evident the fact the with technology, a text can be enhanced through the writer’s imagination. “Inanimate Alice” follows a young girl’s inner thoughts as her mother takes her to find her father after he has been missing from their base camp for a few days (Pullinger). As a complimentary element to the text which tells the story, the piece also makes use of pictures and music. The medium in this case envelops the reader. When reading, one hears the electronic music that accompanies the girl’s games, and the mindset of the young girl truly comes alive. Through this visual and auditory technology, the writer was able to make the choice of more actively involving the reader in the story for the purpose of invoking some of the childish wonder and fright that this girl is experiencing. The writer, in a way, still retains his creative choice; sometimes this choice involves giving the reader greater control and immersion.

However, some critics, like Birkerts, disapprove of the scope of choice that new media allow the writer and the reader. Choice can be overwhelming to the human mind. If given the option, the mind often wanders and strays, unsure of which path to take. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Nicolas Carr asks if the depth and range that the internet allows is dividing our attention and expanding choice too far. Of the internet, Carr notes that “it injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed…the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration” (Carr). Carr certainly has a point. New media, especially those types that live on the World Wide Web, can be distracting. Sometimes hyperlinks propel the reader forward even before the current passage has been read. However, this type of reading happens with books one reads as well. If the story is uninteresting, one finds himself flipping through pages, looking forward towards the ending. Although surely, the internet divides a reader’s attention and makes concentration, all social ills cannot be placed on electronic media. Sometimes the uses of flashy stunts like the use of hyperlinks are simply gimmicks. Hyperlinks will not help make a dry piece more interesting, but it will make a reader feel more unfocused and thus gives the sense that his attention is being pulled in all directions. Honestly, one cannot take a stand that all electronic writing projects are revolutionary and worthwhile. Some truly are distracting and unexciting. However, one cannot view the whole of the genre by its weakest parts, and unsuccessful use of the medium is the fault of the writer, not of technology. Although this type of writing has been evolving steadily in past years, it has not yet reached the highest level of what it can be. Every medium has flaws and limitations. Print media can be criticized for being too stagnant and inflexible, but it is still useful. In the hands of someone who has a real grasp of the medium, it comes to life. When the medium and the message work together, distraction is not evident because the medium is the message. Electronic media are far from perfect, but it still has a lot to offer for people who understand how to use it.

Writing, as a verb, is expanding and so too must our understanding and use of various writing media. Writing and reading have always had many meanings. One can read a room or read an emotion on someone’s face. A fate is said to be written in the stars just as a novel is written on paper. Writing and reading, as evolving terms, can therefore be extended to new, evolving media. One can read the meaning of a visual image as clearly as it is written in the context of the essay. The practice of drawing meaning from these events expands the reader’s creative mind and brings more choice to both the roles of reader and writer. There will always be pieces of writing that are more successful than another, we as writers must only be mindful of the medium in which we are writing. We, as contemporary Frankensteins, stitching together life from old forms, must just be cautious of what we are sending out into the world, learning from the mistake of the modern-day Prometheus.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
~Alexandria Smythe

Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Carr, Nicolas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Kenney, Adam. “The Museum.” Cyberartsweb. N.p., 4 Apr. 2004. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
MacLuhan, Marshall. The Medium Is the Message. Corte Madera: Gingko Pr., 2005. Print.
Pullinger, Kate. “Inanimate Alice, Episode 1: China.” Electronic Literature Collection. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

Reading the Electronic Medium

When in middle school, at least in my experience, cursive is taught and touted as a necessity for writing in high school and college. Fearing that all would be lost if I did not exactly replicate each and every loop and curl, I practiced along with the other students and was surprised when upon reaching high school, not a single teacher asked for any assignment written in cursive. It was rare that teachers asked for a handwritten sheet at all, they took points off if it was not typed. The developed world is moving away from pen and paper, and even printed novels and newspapers are produced at a keyboard. The electronic age has transformed daily life, especially in regards to reading and writing. We have seemed to readily accept every new media forms with open arms, sometimes with a disregard for its proper use and implications; this phenomenon urges closer attention. New media writing spans many areas, combining audio, hyperlinks to outside sources, and perhaps video or visual elements as well. Obviously, new diversions can take away from writing, distracting the reader away from the ideas of the writer. However, this distraction is not always evident, and oftentimes, the medium adds weight and dimension to the message. Although, the medium does not always (but indeed should) enhance the message, the options available to writers and readers through new media has been largely responsible for many worthwhile and compelling creative works.

A term often associated with electronic media is choice: choice of the reader and of the writer. In regards to the reader, he has more of an active, participatory role in determining not only the interpretation of the text, but often he also decides in which direction the text will lead. For example, The Museum, a hypertextual creation by Adam Kenney allows readers to choose which path they wish to pursue through the museum, mirroring an actual trip to such an institution and the highly subjective and individualized nature of such an experience. Obviously, this case is one of many examples of hypertext stories that exist today, but they all give the reader more of a role to play in the reading experience. Choosing which links to follow ultimately determine what message a reader will obtain from the experience and relinquishing some control from the writer. Birkerts argues that placing emphasis on the reader as the paramount participant in the writing process is problematic. He describes his personal horror house which he refers to as a “‘hypertext hotel’” (Birkerts 160) forwarding the term of critic Robert Coover. He explains how both readers and writes can hack the words of the writer, creating new meaning and significance. In his words, technological media deals a “mighty blow to the long-static writer-reader relationship” (163). Birkerts, of course places writer before reader when he writes of the “writer-reader relationship.” The writer, to him, is dominant. The “point” of reading, states Birkerts is “to be subjected to the creative will of another” (163). This statement may be true of print media, and indeed it works well for this form; I often read to get lost in the imagination of another and get out of my own head. However, electronic media often have a different point that the author is trying to get across to his reader, perhaps a point that relies on engaged interaction and individual interpretation. Returning to the Museum, one can see that the message of the author his enhanced by his medium. The choice of the reader is important in mirroring the engagement one has in a museum experience. Although the role of the reader in the direction of what is read is evolving, it is not necessarily a negative change.

Likewise, the role of the writer is not minimized in the concept of choice. Birkerts attempts to convey that the power of the writer is being diminished. However, one can argue that this authority is merely changing, similar to that of the reader. The wide array of options now available to the writer – including audio, video, hypertexts, and animation – allow the writer to wear multiple hats. He is the writer, the designer, even the editor and the publisher of blogs and websites. Although Birkerts feels that electronic media create a “candy-store array of choices” (160), can one really state that this choice is definitively and undeniably damaging? The connotation of saying that one has the vast options available in a candy store is to say that there are many bright, flashy objects all vying for attention. A kid in a candy store will most likely eat himself into a coma. Obviously, some writers do take the approach, advocating that more is better and the message does not matter. However, these writers are simply not skilled in the medium. Choice, for a writer, can be a powerful tool when used correctly. The appropriate comparison would be a master craftsman who uses a hammer to build a house as opposed to a novice carpenter who uses it to nail his finger to the wall. Marshall McLuhan – author of the book The Medium is the Massage, which itself combines old and new media – argues for awareness of new media. He asserts that “all media work us over completely” (McLuhan 26). The choice of the writer is a greater control over how his thoughts and ideas further envelop and “work over” the reader.

However, some critics, like Birkerts, disapprove of the scope of choice that new media allow the writer and the reader. Choice can be overwhelming to the human mind. If given the option, the mind often wanders and strays, unsure of which path to take. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Nicolas Carr asks if the depth and range that the internet allows is dividing our attention and expanding choice too far. Of the internet, Carr notes that “it injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed…the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration” (Carr). Carr certainly has a point. New media, especially those types that live on the World Wide Web, can be distracting. Sometimes hyperlinks propel the reader forward even before the current passage has been read. However, this type of reading happens with books one reads as well. If the story is uninteresting, one finds himself flipping through pages, looking forward towards the ending. Although surely, the internet divides a reader’s attention and makes concentration, all social ills cannot be placed on electronic media. Sometimes the uses of flashy stunts like the use of hyperlinks are simply gimmicks. Hyperlinks will not help make a dry piece more interesting, but it will make a reader feel more unfocused and thus gives the sense that his attention is being pulled in all directions. Honestly, one cannot take a stand that all electronic writing projects are revolutionary and worthwhile. Some truly are distracting and unexciting. However, one cannot view the whole of the genre by its weakest parts. Although this type of writing has been evolving steadily in past years, it has not yet reached the highest level of what it can be. Every medium has flaws and limitations. Print media can be criticized for being too stagnant and inflexible, but it is still useful. I the hands of someone who has a real grasp of the medium, it comes to life. Electronic media are far from perfect, but it still has a lot to offer for people who understand how to use it.

Writing, as a verb, is expanding and so too must our understanding and use of various writing media. Writing and reading have always had many meanings. One can read a room or read an emotion on someone’s face. A fate is said to be written in the stars just as a novel is written on paper. Writing and reading can therefore be extended to new media. One can read the meaning of a visual image as clearly as it is written in the context of the essay. The practice of drawing meaning from these events expands the reader’s creative mind and brings more choice to both the roles of reader and writer. There will always be pieces of writing that are more successful than another, we as writers must only be mindful of the medium in which we are writing. We, as contemporary Frankensteins, stitching together life from old forms, must just be cautious of what we are sending out into the world, learning from the mistake of the modern-day Prometheus.

Remediating the Medium

Sven Birkerts is deeply fearful of remediated texts – hyperlinks, electronic essays, the digital world as a whole that does not live within the pen and on the paper. Indeed, the more tangible medium of print is giving way to new media, and this reality is represented in the prevalent culture of Facebook, blogs, email, and text messaging. According to Birkerts, “hand-written letters gave way to typed letters, which became word-processed letters a great many of the, structured in advance software…e-mail chatter is making rapid inroads on the tradition of paper envelop and stamp” (Birkerts 227). Electronic media are undisputedly making a push to overcome traditional media. However, these forms still exist, but their messages are now made all the more powerful by their medium. A hand-written love letter means much more to the recipient than an affectionate e-mail. The freedom to choose the medium in which a writer works makes the message all the more powerful. We are not forgetting the importance of print media but rather highlighting its importance by using it as a truly worthy and appropriate genre. Blogging is a medium, much like the old-fashioned journal, for ideas that are not always fully developed but rather quick and interactive. One would not necessarily make a book out of the ideas presented in a blog or a journal. One does not use the fine china for a backyard barbeque with family, and one does not use print media for discursive wandering. Rather than replacing traditional means of writing, people are simply given greater choice of how they wish to present such writing. Marshall McLuhan in his work, The Medium is the Massage, suggests that new media has a purpose; it is not to replace old methods but to extend them. The medium is a persuasive tool, it “work[s] us over completely” (McLuhan 25).
Remediated texts are not to be feared. With any artistic form, there are pieces that stand out and make use of the medium in ways that enhance rather than detract, and there are pieces that fall flat and are a poor representation of what can be done with the tools at hand. A clay sculpture made in an elementary art class will not look like one molded by professional hands, but one cannot judge the merit of this mode of expression by its basest form. Janet Murray, author of Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace and a teacher of electronic fiction, proposes that one not look at the potential for failure within the genre but at the potential for great success and originality. Murray states that “the spirit of the hacker is one of the great creative wellsprings of our time, causing the inanimate circuits to sing with ever more individual and quirky voices; the spirit of the bard is eternal and irreplaceable” (Murray 9). The modernist writer is still endowed with the poetic nature of old writers, but he has evolved with the changing times. Some electronic texts have more merit than other, just as with any text, but the potential for greatness is still housed within the artist and his medium.
The internet offers the writer new choices on how to craft his message, potentially making it more powerful than he could with mere pen and paper. For example The Museum, a hypertextual story that lives only as a web-based text, makes use of the internet and its advantages to mirror the experience of a museum. One can choose which room to enter, which pieces to look more closely at and which to walk past. This text is not without its flaws (it was perhaps a bit discursive, and the hyperlinks were at times too distracting to concentrate on story). However, the medium was more effective in giving the reading the experience of a museum than pen and paper would have done. The emphasis is on the reader to create meaning from his individual experience much like when one looks into a painting or a sculpture housed in a museum. “The medium is the message” (McLuhan 26). It works over the reader and is meant to enhance the reading experience. The level of success that a remediated text achieves depends on numerous factors, but the artist is at least now free to choose.

Techno-Speak

“Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The short answer, quite possibly yes, at least in the sense of memorization and such, but the more important question for me would be, is it worth it? Are there benefits to having a wealth of human information at our fingertips that makes losing the ability to retain it all worthwhile? Before humans began writing information down, people had herculean memories. In comparison, the brains of today are rather puny in their ability to recall facts. Studies have shown that when people believe that a piece of information will be available to them later, they are more likely to forget this bit of human knowledge. Nicolas Carr’s aforementioned question raises issues of minimal memorization, lack of concentration, and technological dependence. It is the last line of Nicolas Carr’s article that is especially unnerving: “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” (Carr).
By now, many of us must realize what we are losing through Google, through the internet, through 24/7 distraction, but we are still plugged in. We therefore continue because we believe the damage to be worth it, so what do we gain? In terms of essay-writing, we stand to gain much from the advancements in technology. Hyperlinks, in particular, help to facilitate the creative mind. Adam Kenney’s digital interactive cyberdrama, The Museum, is composed of text and hyperlinks, leading the reader in whichever direction he wishes to go, much like a real museum. Kenney’s choice of media works to simulate the actual experience of a museum, making this particular medium far more effective than pen and paper for this particular message. These elements of choice and interaction in The Museum work to push the limits of the traditional reading experience. Janet Murray, author of Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, notes that her electronic fiction students are becoming more and more comfortable with the electronic medium and she expresses excitement at the implications that this knowledge will have on the future of electronic writing. She writes that “every year [her] students arrive feeling more at home with electronic environments and are more prepared to elicit something with the tone of a human voice out of the silent circuitry of the machine” (Murray 9). For Murray, the increase in electronic advancements is thrilling in that it allows one to test the boundaries of creativity. Hypertexts, video, audio, images are all available to a writer working in the electronic medium.
If Google is making us stupid, at least the rest of the internet is making up for it. Although yes, our memories are not what they used to be, and yes we are more easily distracted, these are inevitable byproducts of the changing times. We keep using the internet because it is useful. The internet is a powerful tool for the writer and provides a medium for creative expression that would not be possible with mere pen and paper. Learning to tune out the distractions of the internet seems to me to be a more realist and useful objective than unplugging oneself completely. Stop using Google. Grab a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a novel. Turn off the computer and focus. It will not be easy. The internet has a lot to offer for the writer, but just like any tool, he must learn how to use it productively.

K.J. Sanchez and Forwarding (Extra Credit 2)

K. J. Sanchez is a playwright/activist/producer (she refers to herself as a “slasher”) who uses interviews as a tool for gathering research for her plays and forwarding it into her material. She spoke here at Washington College on Tuesday, April 9 at the Lit House for her first of two lectures on playwriting. She referred to this session as a “craft talk,” discussing the methods she uses to put together a play. Her approach differed from my previous conception of what exactly a playwright does. I pictured a lone writer, sitting in a room, letting her imaginative determine the characters, the plot, the setting of the story. This, however, is not the case. Sanchez’s work is deeply informed by those around her, borrowing from the stories that others wish to hear told. She explained what she called “the art of the interview” wherein she talks with others about their experiences. She uses three methods: recording and transcribing, listening and later writing a story from that person’s perspective, and listening and simply allowing the conversation to inspire a scene or a character. These methods seem to me to be a type of forwarding, borrowing from the ideas of others and using them as evidence, lending logos and ethos. Sanchez notes how her plays closely resemble “collages,” assemblages of different pieces and materials that come together to create a cohesive whole. Rather than starting off with a clear story in mind she researches intensively on a topic and later puts the different pieces together into a more traditional story arc. The similarity to Marshal McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Massage” occurred to me, particularly the use of collage and her description of the “visceral” elements of a play that are in balance with the overall message since McLuhan’s argument is told partially through images. I was then somewhat amused to learn that Sanchez had been involved in a project early in her career entitled “The Medium” in which she forwarded the argument of McLuhan into a new medium, the play. She did not elaborate very much on this early project, but I was interested about how forwarding McLuhan’s argument into a different medium changed its own message (or massage). The play form is one that still combines writing and images, “writing in visceral forms” as Sanchez referred to it, and becomes a collage of these two elements. Without being able to view the play, it is difficult to tell how the two, the book and the play, are similar or different in their expression of the message through the medium, but it is interesting to think about what McLuhan’s own reaction would have been. Since McLuhan’s argument points to the medium of expression being important to the message, would he have been receptive to its interpretation in the form of a play instead of the original text? Somehow it is easier to imagine McLuhan’s text being forwarded into a newer, technological medium rather than the historical genre of the play. Overall, Sanchez’s idea of forwarding, through her plays is an interesting one to consider in my own writing.