In my very first post of the semester, all the way back in January, I discussed how, unlike traditional literature, electronic literature cannot be confined to a narrow definition. It has too many various affordances and forms to be easily labeled and sorted away. Over the course of the semester, I think that I have found this to become even more true.
The next two posts speak of very different works- Shade and procedurally generated literature. One thing that has surprised me throughout the semester is the inclusion of works like Shade into the curriculum. Many times, these works feel more like games than literary works that we should be studying for a class. (I did make an explicit comparison to the work Game, Game, Game, and Again Game to the video game platformer Mario in my final post.) However, I do think they have merit, and I have really enjoyed studying them.
Both these works provide a poignant example of the ways in which electronic literature differs greatly from traditional literature, which is something I’ve been interested in throughout the course. With Shade, and works like it, the player has a direct influence on the story. While the plot does not change (although in other works it can!), the player is given free rein to explore the environment and progress at their own pace. In contrast, with the procedurally generated works, their vastness is not something that can be replicated in traditional literature. Further, it is often the reader that interprets the work and gives it meaning because there is no authorial intent.
Over the course of the semester, my understanding of electronic literature has been greatly expanded, and the ways in which I can analyze these types of works have also changed significantly. Coming into this class, I didn’t even really have a sense of what electronic is. While I still don’t think I could define it, this comes more from the genre itself being so vast rather than a lack of understanding.