For class you should watch the first season of KateModern, begin with Welcome to the Roof. There are also two videos that precede “Welcome to the Roof” that you cannot see on Bebo, you might want to watch them first: Spiders and A Friendly Lie. There are over 100 episodes in the first season so you might want to knock out a few of them early. Most of them are relatively short, one minute to three minutes long. By Saturday you should post a comment to this blog entry on the reading (in the next couple of days I will post a sample to give you a sense of what I am asking for).
Update: Sample is posted. Click on “(1 comment)” below to add a new one.
One point on purchasing texts, apparently Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas does not work with Windows Vista, I will look into this and we can talk about it in class. We have some time to address this concern as we are not covering GTA until the end of the semester.
For those who are into Twitter you can follow me.
And finally for those not familiar with RSS you can watch The Common Craft Show’s introduction, or read some of my thoughts on RSS, here or here.
Here is a sample question:
One particular moment of the series that struck me was in the video, “Explain Yourself.” As Tariq climbs the wall to locate Gavin the camera suddenly goes still (about 48 seconds in). While in prior storytelling mediums the camera remains mostly still, in this case the episodes are punctuated my a distinct lack of stillness. That is, while in film and television the camera is supposed to remain neutral, a third party observer (realism is created by making the camera transparent), in this case of Web Narrative, the camera becomes a character. Thus we are always aware of the camera, and not just aware of the camera but aware that someone is holding the camera, the moment that it goes still seems odd—suddenly no one is holding it. Indeed frequently the person turns the camera on his or herself. Clearly this is not something limited to the web—think of the Blair Witch Project—but it certainly seems to operate here in a more “natural” way. Close-ups, jittery cameras, blurry shots, all seem to enhance the realism of the viewing experience, reproducing the aesthetics of other YouTube videos. Of course there is an inversion here where the realism being portrayed in the video, reflective of a YouTube aesthetic or rhetoric, is highly mediated and anything but natural and realistic, not only is the whole thing fiction but substantial effort goes into producing the “natural” or “real” effect. And this holds for the camera as well, the camera mediates the experience, it is what captures and shows us what is going on, but rather than trying to be transparent, again as the neutral third party observer, it actually records itself doing the recording. So, I wonder is this something intrinsic to the medium? is there something about computers that make this hypermediation seem natural, only things that are hypermediated are real?
I have some mixed feelings about this text. I did start finding some entertainment in the story towards the end of the series but overall I’m left questioning the medium’s effectiveness as a narrative. Instead of just enjoying the story, many times I caught myself getting annoyed with trying to validate whether or not certain videos did a good enough job to pass the quasi-non-fiction barrier. I’m left wondering … What would it be like if a purely fictional piece where shot like this? If I was watching this on a TV would I get annoyed? If the videos were any longer would I lose interest? The use of time, or length of each video, is what intrigues me most. I found myself blowing through these videos very quickly and without interruption. The story will stick in my mind better than if I had read it in a book. Why is that? Does that make this a better medium for a narrative? Or, is it just a better medium for this particular narrative? Whatever the case may be the series gets to me on more of a subconscious level; Almost like speed reading in short bursts.
And, for the record sangas are disgusting. Did I really see him put baked beans, bananas, honey and hot sauce on toast and eat it?
Brought to You By…
There are well-placed and consistent shots of our characters using Windows Live technology. The shots of the Windows Live Technology (partnered with Orange Phone Company, in conjunction with Bebo and broadcast so-and-so TM) are reiterated constantly. Whether it’s a meeting, stalking, video upload, or treasure hunt, we viewers are yet again reminded of the sponsors and the technology backbone. Ok, I get it! Enough.
Mac What?
Another note on sponsorships. As I watched, I noticed hardly anyone in London wearing the well-know and iconic iPod ear buds. Lots of people in large cities, no matter where you are, wear iPod ear buds when they commute through the city. This series somehow conveniently avoids all instances of this. The only mention of Apple in this series comes from the photographer at Charlie’s agency gig… and well… we all know that the “artsy” people all use Mac, right? (And I don’t mean MAC makeup.)
Reality Bites.
On another note, have you seen the movie “Reality Bites?” Winona Ryder plays Lelaina Pierce, a struggling twenty-something who’s trying to make her way in the real world. Lelaina documents much of her life through her interaction with friends on her video camera, and the recordings of her life and her friends’ lives give the film a very close-to-home and personal, tangible feeling. In one part of the film, Pierce meets Michael Grates (a sell-out TV producer played by Ben Stiller) and falls for both his relationship pitch and his corporate sales pitch. She ends up agreeing to a pilot show project about her videos and hands her material over to Grates. At the watching party, she surprisingly finds out that some of her footage has been drastically edited to promote the “new sponsor,” Pizza Hut. I feel a slight similarity between Reality Bites and Kate Modern. Both have baked in sponsors to their respective story lines. However, Kate Modern’s use of sponsorships is much more sneaky and ordinary – like people using the technology in their everyday lives. Not people eating pizza.
There was one episode called “abstract heart” where I felt like they really broke away from reality story they were trying to create. This episode was more like a music video as there was no dialogue and it was shot more like a professional video with lots of production involved. It was also interesting because the handheld camera was not the same character in this episode. The camera was an old type of camera and it was not treated as a character like the other episodes. This episode made me ask myself if all of the stories were real or were they just the thoughts of Kate? I also asked myself why did the length of these episodes annoy me? Was it my age, my media consumption culture that I grew up in? It seemed I couldn’t stay interested in these commercial like snippets and this led me to not really keep the story together like when I read a book. It almost reminded me of flip book animation in that you had to click frame after frame in order to piece a story together and I am not sure that activity helps or hurts in the art of storytelling.
I found the story line pretty interesting, and there were subplots throughout, of course, with lee stealing the software, and then the software being taken by the order, linking it into the kate/hymn-of-one original plot. I did find it difficult to watch some of the videos that apparently had no bearing on the plot, but then many of them that i suspected were unrelated (the ones where Gavin was subjecting Lee to trash can hoops humiliation) really tied into the story later on. I am not sure I could have maintained interest in this story with only one short video posted daily on Bebo, had I been a daily viewer. While some of the early episodes may have been enough to spark my interest, I feel I might have lost interest at some point in the story and stopped checking for daily posts. Nevertheless, having watched all of them in a matter of a few days, I did feel I was entertained and interested in the characters and what would happen to them. The season finale was quite a cliffhanger! The fact that the episodes were very short gave an overall movement to the series that a television show based on the same plot would not have been able to achieve. I began to enjoy the fast pace, and the series did seem more real for all the hand-held camera chase scenes. I felt a certain involvement with the characters toward the end because they felt more real in the context of the video blogging style. Something I noticed was that there seemed to be quite a few product placements in the series, which I seemed to notice more toward the beginning than in the end. There were so many references to Orange and wireless internet services, and then in one video short, Charlie was surrounded by candy bar wrappers placed suspiciously close to the camera angle for foreground prominence. And, of course, many films were promoted in the series. But, it would be impossible to film one’s daily life without seeing products in the scene somewhere, as I look around my desk and see several brand names lurking about. So, in a way, that added some realism, I suppose, but I found myself wondering how much money a sponsor like Orange may have given to have a place in the series. The acting was pretty good overall, which helped achieve the sense of realism the creators were striving for. I think a simpler plot would have been the only thing required to make it seem even more real, as the plot was a little unbelievable, of course. On a personal note, I just went to London a month ago, so I enjoyed seeing some places in the series that I had visited while I was there!
As far as sangas go, I think the one Charlie made in the beginning with the peaches, peanut butter, and banana looked pretty tasty! And for some reason, the sandwich Gavin made didn’t surprise me because the English eat baked beans with everything!
I’m probably completely off-base here, but much like jduff’s comments, I also have very mixed feelings about KateModern. On one hand, I find it a mildly amusing Heroes-like soap opera. It’s all there–secrets, lies, sex, pregnancy scares, an attractive cast. On the other hand, though, it seems more like a reality show than any scripted television show or movie.
Maybe it’s my news writing background, but the series’ structure continuously left me feeling jipped. Many of the segments left viewers with more questions than answers. Why couldn’t they just get to the point instead of dragging the storyline out so long?
Other segments were completely inconsequential. What does showing someone making a sanga tell you about that person’s character that couldn’t be ascertained from their body language or speech?
Though the use of the camera as a character is interesting, it’s also jarring. The videographers may attempt to create a “real” atmosphere, but the techniques they employ don’t work. The combination of blurry scenes, jittery close-ups and dramatic pauses makes it more like a home movie than something professionally produced.
There may be a script, but it is disjointed at best. I feel like I’m watching something akin to Ed TV or somebody’s personal video diary. The disjointed storyline and camera usage also make it hard to ascertain whether what’s happening in one particular segment is actually happening or whether it’s all just one big scripted game. The fact that the characters post clues and notes on the site further compounds my frustration. Maybe that’s the idea. But can we really call something that seems unscripted at best a narrative? Don’t narratives have easily recognizable structures such as beginnings and endings? This may be a series, but what makes this a narrative when much of the stuff on YouTube wouldn’t be considered anything close to a narrative?
If KateModern is “the world’s first and only interactive serial broadcast on a social network,” as those involved posted on the site, in what ways do the public interact? And how do those interactions guide the narrative? The only “public” we see are Sophie and the few people with her in a couple of episodes, but I took them to be actors like the rest of the cast.
Could Sophie possibly be the compilation of comments and questions viewers post to the sites and blogs associated with the series? If so, how do producers decide which ones to use? Do they pick out those that follow the original story plan, or do they allow viewers to take part in shaping the story through their comments? Or, is Sophie just another character and I’m making far too much of it?
While we are thinking about altering the narrative, let’s look at the blatant product placement throughout the series. What is the Orange obsession all about? Just the instances in which characters said something specifically Orange specific we heard about Orange Wednesday, Orange data card, Julia’s shop with the Orange line, Sophie’s phone at St. Paul’s Cathedral. How much did Orange have to pay to drive the story? And would that even be possible in a dead-trees version of the same story? Probably not. In books we read about using the cell phone, drinking a soda and having coffee more than we read about using the T-Mobile phone, drinking a Dr. Pepper or stopping at Starbucks for coffee. Bringing the narrative to video brings room for product placement.
And Orange, while the most openly pimped, is not alone. Characters said, showed or used Pantene products, geo cashing, Yahoo!, specific phones, wireless cards/carriers, at Tampax throughout the series. I’m sure there were more, but those were the most obvious product placement instances I saw. Kate easily could have asked Charlie for a tampon instead of using the Tampax brand name. But, since Internet advertising brings in big bucks and video allows for integrated advertising, the products come flying in. Would we even have looked at the whole pregnancy issue if Tampax didn’t approve their name in the show?
For every brand name we see in a story a writer somewhere had to go through how a character came to that preference, why the character uses the product, etc. So I have to wonder how much influence the advertising had on KateModern’s story.
The bebo “channel” Kate Modern strikes me as The Perils of Pauline meets Dogma 95 dressed up as video blogging. After 151 videos and too many hours, in the words of Ralph Parker of The Christmas Story what we have is “a crummy commercial…” aimed at bebo’s target audience of 15 through 24 year-olds.
The psychotic screenplay alternated between calling attention to the medium and ignoring it, along the way attempting to model video blogging behavior and attempting to engage the audience in the story. There were certainly shills in the audience, but I suspect adjustments were made based on audience reactions or lack there of. The story became more interesting (and sometimes plausible) when Kate vanished into the back-story and the supporting characters were developed somewhat (but not beyond the maturity level of the 7th grade.)
In my opinion, the drama worked best when the realism of the action matched the realism implied by the media. The leaps into science fiction were awkward and painful to watch as was the pajamaed Kate kissing the lens. Could it be the images captured hand-held DV are too real to support anything more than mild departures from reality? Perhaps hand-held DV is limited in its ability to suspend disbelief. Did anyone believe Charlie was being a good friend when she impaled Kate with a horse-sized hypodermic filled with an unknown substance shipped overseas from an internet-acquaintance? Perhaps if we had already been mentally floating around in Narnia for 30 minutes or so we could have bought it.
It seems the writers made no effort to research anything beyond their everyday lives. When the script attempted to reach beyond its Friends-like screenplay is where things tended to fall apart. The flip-flops between pretense and fiction were awkward. When Charlie returns to Australia to resume her parental responsibilities she leaves the story and says goodbye. Is video blogging only for kids and irresponsible young adults? Perhaps not a subject for marketing a social network for airheads, where Charlie left off was possibly the most promising territory for a dramatic video blog – real, important and interesting.
From my position as a virtual non-techie kind of person I found this KateModern world to be pretty interesting, entertaining, and effective in portraying a bizarre pseudo-hyperreality or surreality where everyone walks around with video cameras documenting their “lives,” where everyone is constantly connected, interacting, and watching and responding to everyone else, both virtually and in person. Despite the fact that it is obviously fiction, the themes threaded throughout the narrative—truth, lies, trust, memory(loss), madness, names, identity—are presented in a way that blurs the lines between reality and non-reality. Also, watching an entire season over the space of a few days, for me made it “read” more like a story and made me wonder if it might be interesting to re-view the season in different ways, such as watching all the video blogs posted by each character independently, on their own as if they were their own kind of mini-series or narrative—what kind of story would they tell? Would each be cohesive enough to understand? Would you truly gain different perspectives given that we are viewing the narrative from several different perspectives?
The seemingly out-of-place episodes, that didn’t deal with the main trait positive storyline, were sometimes just odd and sometimes a nice change. The various uses of the camera were definitely a nice change from the typical jumpy or whirling or running hand-held camera action and the up close cuts, such as the time lapse of Charlie’s day in “Enter the Order” and the still camera filming Kate filming herself in “Dream Lover.’ However, I don’t much appreciate the use of Charlie’s Ninja animation, except for it’s value as a change from the usual and its experimental “feel.”
From an aesthetic standpoint, I particularly liked Kate’s nightmare in “Awful Video” and, what I guess is one of her art films, “Abstract Heart.” Also have to say that two of my favorites were “A Friendly Lie” where we have the word play with lies and “lice” (along with the camera cuts) and Kate’s discussion of The Truth in Painting in “Derrida.”
There is no need for molds…unless you have need to hold something together in a form. Is there a mold or genre into which this show fits?
As I went through this series, I felt a bit discombobulated. On the one hand I felt the performances were transparent, meaning, I did not notice the acting in general, which in this case is a good thing. I never felt like I was looking a something “faked.” The writing was good as well. Information flowed in a good way and it never felt rushed. I did notice the product placement, but having see that happening in broadcast television in general, it really was not an issue for me…it is something I have put in the “suspended belief” category.
Continuing through the episodes, and as the story progressed and we knew the characters, one of the issues that came up in my head was that I did not know how the show wanted to be viewed. It was not a comedy, though it has comedic themes. It has enough drama to be categorized as so, but there was enough of the other elements, such as comedy and science fiction content, that it never stuck in one of these for me. There is definitely a Science Fiction feel as the story grows, but again, it was heavy enough in other elements that I was not sure how to digest the information. Again, I do not need it to be in a mold, but I felt that, with all the freedom to work with whatever themes and content, and not having a “Network” looking at stats and ratings, that it bounced around and I had trouble getting immersed in the story.
Here is my take. I thought they had three themes of shows working. Reality TV such as The Hills, Science Fiction like X-Files, and drama like Melrose Place. All three are successful themes. Each one could stand on their own and make interesting shows. It seemed like, however, all three are mashed together into this show. Personally, if this were a show on television on broadcast, I would not see it, that said, I do not think the show was bad, on contrary, it seemed good, it just is not what I use my time to watch. I do not think that melding these themes was unsuccessful, it probably was, but it did not appeal to me. It still comes down to figuring who your audience is, they have obviously found one. Is it a new kind of audience? I don’t know. The great thing about this is that, there is freedom from these genres in this medium, the terrible news is that I might have to wade through a lot more content to find shows that appeal to me.
Also…what is up with the heroine of the show being a Caucasian, blonde hair, light eyed, fair-skinned, anglo-saxon girl who saves the world…ok, ok, ok…maybe I am reading too far into it,…maybe that is a subject for a different class or question.
The overall text of ‘Kate Modern’ is very stylistic to the video blogging, a.k.a. vlog, medium. Our perception of online video, I would argue, is very much based off of YouTube. I’m not saying that YouTube created the vlog, but helped to define the visual characteristics of online video. We expect shaky camera work and people desperately needing a tripod, minimal editing, over exposure of light, and jump cuts when editing is employed. ‘Kate Modern’ gives us all of that into a nice, pre-packaged box with less motion sickness.
The story is not unusual, but the way that it’s told by grasping at different perspectives makes ‘Kate Modern’ stand out. You have action, adventure, drama, romance, and comedy, the generic formula that most movies and television shows require. Having the extreme close ups of characters talking directly to the camera, to their audience and allowing the reality of that world become intertwined with ours creates the “unique” experience.
My thought on a discussion is what role does the camera play? Is the camera apart of the action or merely the viewer? Is there a person that is holding, or is the camera, that the audience is meant to identify with and understand as an individual playing along with the story? I ask this because after the first few episodes the camera took a life of its own. “Money In The Bank” for example, when Gavin and Tariq are attempting to get a loan for their business, the camera moves away from the two as a separate entity. If this is a series filmed as if though the characters are controlling the camera, why is it being removed? I bring this up because there are quirks made by the camera that are not inherent with the characters and this becomes noticeable as the story presses forward.
For example, Tariq when he holds the camera is straight on, face forward, very little movement, sometimes angled up at his face. Gavin tends to place the camera on a table or a flat surface and brings himself to the level of the camera. Charlie has a lot of motion, energy, and quick camera movements. Kate uses a combination of Tariq and Charlie, but in a more over stylized manner that she is deliberately playing with the aesthetic to grab out attention and simulate movement, not that the camera is being jostled ‘Blair Witch’ style. So what about all of those moments when the camera is far removed from these characters? How are we, the audience, meant to view the camera? If we talk about narratives, we need to take into consideration the audience’s place in the story.
To begin with, here’s a word from my sponsors:
“There may be better ways to spend 15 minutes online”
Now, seriously, what caught my attention more than anything else (including the story) were the interludes, such as the animations or videos supposedly created by Charlie and Kate. These moments worked perfectly to bring necessary relief from the melodramatic conflicts presented, to summarize the story so far, or simply to portray it as seen through the imagination or subconscious of either one of the characters. There were other interludes; far more frequent I’m afraid, which instead of being a relief became a nuisance. It’s obvious I’m referring to the product endorsements. From movies to a band, the number of products that were constantly invading the screen, despite the producer’s best efforts to make their appearance as casual as possible, just kept interfering and signaling the audience that we were watching a work of fiction (and that was absolutely unnecessary given the actual story).
As for the story itself, I found it to be completely unbelievable (but not in a the “this story blew my mind” kind of way, but rather in the “I really want to blow my head off after seeing this piece of …” to make this text somewhat interactive I’ll allow you to fill in the gap). With its shifting from melodrama to mystery to action to light comedy to adventure and ultimately to the outer limits of sheer stupidity almost at the same rhythm that the camera shakes or the image jumps from one shot to another, it’s hard (almost impossible, at least for me) to suspend disbelief and get involved in the narrative or get emotionally attached to any of the characters.
After spending a week watching webisode after webisode of KateModern there was one monologue that stuck in my mind when I saw the first webisode of the season and it was said by the main character Kate, “We put a frame around everything, beginning and end. Delineated and categorizing things, putting them in pigeonholes. What we believe is the truth is the truth. Appreciation of a picture happens outside the picture, judging without preconceptions.”
This particular series gives the opportunity of the viewer to have a sense of involvement. The characters in this series provide one on one dialogue with whomever watches the videos, this particular form of narrative provides more interactivity and immersion for the viewer rather than a series seen on television or reading a book.
The amateur style video production of the series and the distribution of it on bebo.com, UK’s version of youtube.com, strengthens the importance of the viewer to become more immersed with digital media done in real time. The story
line itself branches out into substories such as Tariq and Gavvin’s business venture, Charlie’s personal struggle with her personal life and the friends’ troubled relationsip with Kate as she struggles to regain her memory and solve the mystery of the “Order” and their search for “trait positives.” I do agree with jduff that some of the webisodes were quirky. Some of the webisodes seem like they don’t belong such as the sanga webisodes and the brief animation sequences which I believe are Charlie’s personal expression of what’s happening in her life.
Some webisodes also become involved in product placement, celebrating the usage of technology such as cell phones, GPS, Google, and Orange computer stores. Others such as jtidwell saw that as well and I agree with him on the issue.
Overall, I find KateModern to be very entertaining. This is my first time watching an actual series made specifically for the internet and I look forward to season two. With this new form of narratives transitioning to other social networks like MySpace, Facebook, and Youtube, are we seeing a new form of video that will compete with television or is this merely a trend? With the high cost of television production, possible writer strikes and over payed actors; webisodes are here to stay and their evolution should be closely watched. By the way if anyone’s interested, you can also watch MySpace’s web series “Quarterlife.”
There are so many forces at play in Kate Modern that it becomes difficult to ask questions about it. From the beginning, where we are shown “The Roof”, where one could possibly see anything. Should this be considered as our traditional establishing shot for the story? It could be anywhere “out there” from the roof? London is full of video cameras. It seems like we would be able to see anything anytime. But Kate tells us that what we see is controlled within the frame. It seems to be an homage to Ernie Kovacs and the 4th wall. Was this the intention of her reference, or was it exactly the opposite, that, despite the number of cameras, the number of witnesses, we only see what “they” want us to see. The camera is omnipresent, but could it be that the selection of what is seen now constitutes the 4th wall?
I was particularly curious about the voice of the narrative, and was frequently surprised when shifting from first person (or was it actually third person) between subjective and objective camera. I guess my question would be, does the frequent shifting of voice add or take away from the narrative? In previous mediums, it caused confusion and lacked cohesion. For some reason, I felt that it was much easier to adapt to this when viewing Kate Modern.
The type of storytelling depicted here leaves me a bit curious about what constitutes a viable format for the internet. Clearly the small screen and short form resemble the “packet passing” that data does in order to stream the media to our computers. Is this an example of art imitating technology?
I’m not entirely enthused about the voyeuristic vlogging of the individuals and their stories. It resembles Blair Witch in terms of camera jostling, whip-panning and snap-zooming, particularly in key scenes which, without these “methods” would appear bland— case in point, the assassination attempt on Kate’s artist mentor, Ms. Claw. Seems like Gavin would have developed some kind of steadicam for his shots! There does seem to be some elements of character attributed to the camera, depending on who is using it.
Another curiosity of my own concerns the adaptation of a narrative type of documentary. This story clearly begs the question: when is a narrative a documentary and a documentary a narrative? The lines are blurred. Assuming that some of the persons who participated are “real” and some fictitious characters, the events that draw them together make Kate Modern more than just a narrative. It documents events in a real time and real space without a stage or any contrivance, other than story and key characters. And could the future of the medium be a form where story and character are centered around actual events that are outside or out of the control of the original story?
I guess the big question is, could this be the future of storytelling? The personal story, Vlog, is so crude, and yet it appears to be viable as a storytelling medium.
The book Cybertext had two definitions that I wanted to concentrate on and discuss:
1.Ergodic: using a term appropriated from physics that derives from the Greek words ergon and hodos, meaning ‘work’ and ‘path.’ In ergodic literature, nontrivial effort is required to allow the reader to traverse the text
2.Cybertext (which he seems to have many different viewpoints on):
a.The concept of cybertext focuses on the mechanical organization of the text, by positing the intricacies of the medium as an integral part of the literary exchange.(1)
b.A cybertext is a machine for the production of variety of expression.(3)
c.The cybertext reader is a player, a gambler; the cybertext is a game-world or world-game; it is possible to explore, get lost, and discover secret paths in these texts, not metaphorically, but through the topological structures of the textual machinery. (4)
d.Cybertext is a perspective I use to describe and explore the communicational strategies of dynamic texts.(5)
e.Cybertext, then, is not a “new,” “revolutionary” form of text, with capabilities only made possible through the invention of the digital computer. Neither is it a radical break with old-fashioned textuality, although it would be easy to make it appear so. Cybertext is a perspective on all forms of textuality, a way to expand the scope of literary studies to include phenomena that today are perceived as outside of, or marginalized by, the field of literature-or even in opposition to it, for (as I make clear later) purely extraneous reasons. (18)
f.A cybertext must contain some kind of information feedback loop. (19)
g.[Cybertext] is the wide range (or perspective) of possible textualities of seen as a typology of machines, as various kinds of literary communication systems where the functional differences among the mechanical parts play a defining role in determining the aesthetic process.(22)
Many of these literary concepts were new and difficult for me to grasp. I thought about his use of ergodic as it seem to be a macro concept with a broad interpretation — a path that is traversed by readers — as cybertext seems to be more like a micro concept with many interpretations and usages throughout the book.
What I struggle the most with is how evolution from my perspective naturally changes the face of literature (or anything for that matter) over time. The author points out Egyptian hieroglyphs, poems, books, hypertext, adventure games, etc. The natural progression from symbol communication forms, to written, to computer aided seem more like logical progressions as we advance in form as a species. I am not sure why we need to distinguish the progression to so many granual levels>> ergodic|cybertext|hypertext>> and so on…in the understanding and power of literature or the written word. Why the need to distinguish this form of literature as so different? That is what I look forward to hearing more about in class, maybe then I can have a better appreciation for the subject matter as whole.