partly - loriemerson

55

©2008TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress

LORIEMERSON

MyDigitalDickinson

Partlyacontradictionofitstitle,partlyaproductivemisreadingofEm‑ilyDickinson,thisessayrewritesandwritesthroughSusanHowe’sMy

EmilyDickinson to demonstrate a particular readingmethodology in referencetoDickinsonandcontemporarydigitalpoets.1OfcourseitisabsurdtosaythatDickinsonwasadigitalpoet,asweunderstandthattermtoday—poetrythatisbothcreatedusingadigitalcomputerandself‑consciousorself‑reflexiveaboutitsdigitalmediumofcreationandrepresentation.Itisequallyabsurd,becauseofitsinbuilttechnologicaldeterminism,tosaythatthevariantsinDickinson’sworkshowthatshewasa9emptingtowritedigital/hypertextpoemswiththerestric‑tions ofpen andpaper—absurd, that is, to claim that ifDickinson couldhavewri9enhypertextpoemsshesurelywouldhavedoneso.Butwhatiftheapproachwerereframedslightly?InadditiontoreadingDickinsonintothepresentmomentandexaminingherrelationtopoetrytoday,suchasthatbyMaryFlanaganandJuddMorrissey/LoriTalley,wecanforegroundthewaysinwhichthedigitalnowpermeatesourreading/writinghabitsandthewaysinwhichourcurrentculturalmomentmay be a productive frame for readingDickinson.2 That our readingshouldmovebothfromthepresentintothepastandthepastintothepresentisunderscoredbythefactthatwritingtechnologiesingeneralanddigitalwritingmediainparticularcognitivelychangeusasreadersandwriters;further,weareconstantlybeingremediated,inJayBolterandRichardGrusin’ssenseoftheterm,orintermediated,asKatherineHaylesputsit,intootherwritingmedia.3ThroughareadingofDickinsonalongsideFlanaganandMorrissey/Talley,Iarguethatweirremediably see, or even reconfigure, thebook through the lensof thedigitalandthatthetechnologyofthebookfindsitswayintothedigitalaswell.Inotherwords,thisessayisacase‑studyinreadingbookboundanddigitalpoetry—forifwearetoacknowledgefullyandaccuratelythestateofliteratureofthepresent

TheEmilyDickinsonJournal,Vol.XVII,No.2

56

moment,wemustinfuseourinvestigationsintothepresentwithasenseofhistori‑calgroundednessandacknowledgethewaysinwhichourreadingofbookboundpoetsisalreadyframedbythedigital.

Digital poetry, one genre among many underneath the umbrella‑termelectronicliterature,istransformingthelimitsandpossibilitiesofpoetryandpoetics.For instance,howdowe,as literarycriticsandscholars,begin toaccount foraworksuchasMaryFlanagan’s“[theHouse]”?Itisanopen‑endedquestion,forthisworkisengagedwithrepresentingwhatIhelplesslycall“apoem”asanemergentandexplorableobject—athree‑andfour‑dimensionalplacethatissimultaneouslyamaterialanddematerializedplace,onethatiscapableofvisuallyreactingtotheuser’sinteractivestrugglewiththetext.JuddMorrisseyandLoriTalley’sTheJew’sDaughterissimilarlyelusiveasitinvitesreaderstoclickonlinksembeddedinthenarrativetext,linkswhichdonotleadanywheresomuchastheyunpredictablychangesomeportionofthetextbeforeoureyes.4Insofarasthese(nearlybutneverquitetangible)textsareconstantlychanging,moving,generating,andemerging,they seem todefymost conventionsof literary texts (for even themost radicalLanguagepoemby,say,BruceAndrewsorRonSillimanisconsistentlythesametextandcanbereturnedtooverandoveragain).Certainly,thereappearstobeanunbridgeablegulfseparatingwhatIcall“bookbound”poemsfromthesedigitalpoems,onethatcanleadustoaskwhetherdigitalpoemsarepoemsoreveniftheyareoftheliterary.

While there are abundant critical studies on digital film, digital archives,newmedia art, databases, hypertext fiction, artificial intelligence, and artificiallife, the only book‑length studies on digital poetry to date are Loss PequeñoGlazier’sDigital Poetics: TheMaking of E‑Poetries, published in 2001, and ChrisFunkhouser’sPrehistoricDigitalPoetry:AnArcheologyofForms,publishedin2007.Whilefoundational,neitherworkextendsitsexaminationofthehistoricalrootsofdigitalpoetrytothenineteenthcentury,andbothimplicitlyreaddigitalpoetryprecursorsintotwentieth‑centurypoetryandforthemostpartdonota9endtothe ways in which the current cultural moment enriches our reading of thesesamedigitalpoetryprecursors.BothGlazier’sandFunkhouser’sworkspositiondigitalpoetry ina lineageofavant‑garde,modernist,andexperimentalwritingtraditions (ranging fromDada toOulipo toLanguageWriting) toargue for theliterariness,orthelegitimacy,ofdigitalpoetry.Funkhouserdeclaresthat“digitalpoets conceived of theseworkswith the same poetic and theoretical practicesusedbyartistswhoworkedwithnothingmorethanpaperandink”andthatthe“aesthetics of digital poetry are an extension ofmodernist techniques” (3). For

LoriEmerson

57

Funkhouser, then,WilliamsandPoundareprecursors todigitalpoetry in theiruse of juxtaposition as are other “postatomic”writerswho “use fragmentationtolegitimizefragmentationandchallengethestabilityoflanguageasapointofmeaning”(12).

WilliamsandPoundmaywellbecrucialdigitalpoetryprecursors,butaslongaswetracetheirinfluenceaccordingtobroadformalandthematictechniquessuchasjuxtapositionandfragmentation,wecaneasilycallalmostanypoetwhouses these techniquesadigitalpoetryprecursor.On theonehand,at thisearlystageofdefiningthefieldofdigitalpoetry,anyhistoricizingismuchneeded;onthe other hand, to see literary precedents everywherewe look is to gloss overthedefiningeffectsofdifferentwritingmediaonthereading/writingexperience.Digitalpoetsmayhaveconceivedoftheirworks“withthesamepoeticandtheo‑reticalpracticesusedbyartistswhoworkedwithnothingmorethanpaperandink,”asFunkhouserclaims,buttheyalsoconceivedoftheirworksonandforthefundamentallydifferentmediumofthecomputer/screen.Nonetheless,thediffer‑encebetweendigital andbookboundpoetry isnotwhollyunbridgeableorun‑translatable.

Thus,ifwecantracespecificformalandthematicqualitiesofdigitalpoetryback tomodernism, thenwemostcertainlycancross thedivideseparating thetwentieth from the nineteenth century and trace these qualities back to EmilyDickinson or beyond. Further, reading the digital into and out of a poet suchasDickinsonmayenrichourunderstandingofherwork.The terminologyandtheoreticalframingofthepresentmomentissosteepedinthedigitalthat,ocenwithoutourknowing, itsaturatesour languageandhabitsof thought.Surelyaself‑consciousness about, and strategic exploitation of, the ideologies built intooureverydaydigitalcomputingwillreinvigoratetheterminologyandtheoreticalframeworkweusetounderstand,forexample,Dickinson’svariants.5Forinstance,Sharon Cameron’s highly influential descriptions of the variants, which inChoosingNotChoosingareinfusedwiththelanguageofidentityandheteroglossia,canbeaugmentedwithasenseofvariantsasmulti‑dimensional,spatio‑temporallinkages.Further,thismodeofreadingthatusesthepresenttoreadthepastalsomakespossibletheobservationthatwehaveonlyrecentlycometoseeDickinsonnot only as a writer who pins together scraps, creates collages of sorts fromfragmentswri9enatanglestoeachother,anddispersesmeaningthroughvariantsandmultiple versions, but also as onewho is acutely aware of pen andpaperasa technology,aswritingmedia.AsMarthaNellSmith—theExecutiveEditorof theDickinsonElectronicArchives—stated in2002,“newmediachallengeus to


58

considerwhat canbegainedby amplifyingour critical commentary intomoremediaandhowourcritical‑theoreticaltoolscanbeshapedtoexploitmultimediamosteffectively”(845).GiventherelativepaucityofcriticalwritingonDickinsoninrelationtothedigital,thisessayisana9empttotakeupthechallengeofreadingdigital theory and literature alongsideDickinson’spoetry as a case‑study—onethatIhopewillhelpovercometheassumedothernessofdigitalpoetrythroughhistoricizationandthroughexploitingthewaysinwhichtwentieth‑andtwenty‑firstcenturyreadingsofherworkmayalreadybeunavoidablyenmeshedinthedigital.

Anarcheologicalexcavationoftherootsofdigitalpoetry—excavationthatcould,again,involveDickinsonasmuchasWilliams,Pound,orothermodernists—willcertainlyenrichourunderstandingofdigitalpoetryaswell,demonstratingthat these works are notmerely examples of “techniques whereby le9ers andwords canmovearound the screen,breakup, and reassemble, orwhereby thereader/viewercandecidebyamereclicktoreformattheelectronictextorwhichpartofittoaccess,”asMarjoriePerloffputsitinarecentessayondigitalpoetry(162).While these digitalworks do indeed “becomemerely tedious unless thepoetryinquestionis,inEzraPound’swords,‘chargedwithmeaning,’”perhapswe need to learn to becomemore perceptive readers of digital poetry (Perloff162);inotherwords,whileweknowwhat“chargedwithmeaning”lookslikeinapoembyDickinson,Williams,orPound,it isnotagivenwhat“chargedwithmeaning”lookslikeinthedigital.Dickinsoncouldbe“themotherofthemall,”or,inlessdramaticterms,shecouldverywellbeakeyearlyexampleofthekindofinnovationweseeinthecontemporarydigital‑poem‑as‑self‑conscious‑literary‑object.

1.0TheDigital/DickinsonPoemasAntidotetothe“Interface‑Free”One of themost important aspects of EmilyDickinson’swriting that has

emergedinthedigitalageisthatitremindsusthatthereisnosuchthingaswritingthatis“interface‑free”;allwritingcomestousthroughaninterface,andtheprecisewaysinwhichtheinterface,whetheritispencil/pen/paperorthekeyboard‑screen‑mouse (KSM), framessuchwriting requiresdefinition.6Acerall,whatelse isafascicle,apinnedpoem,orabookboundpoemthathasbeenputintoconventionaltypebuta formofwriting interface? It isnotpossible tohaveaccess toapurereading of Dickinson’s poems, one that is unmediated by either twentieth‑ ortwenty‑first‑centuryinterfacesorbyourownthinkinghabitssimilarlyenmeshedin reading/writing interfaces.7 The cost of ignoringwhat Dickinson teaches us

LoriEmerson

59

aboutwriting interfaces has been abundantly illustrated by SusanHowe’s andothers’workonthelimitationsofrelyingsolelyoneditedversionsofDickinson’sworkthatexcludeDickinson’swritinginterfacesandreframeherworkwiththeinterfaceof theprintedbookand the conventionsof typography.WhileHowe,alongwith scholars such asMartaWerner, JeromeMcGann, andMartha NellSmith,havenotdiscussedinterfacesperseinarguingthatDickinson’smanuscriptpoemscannotbeaccuratelyreproduced inbook‑format,digital interfacesbringtolightthefactthatthesediscussionscouldbeframedassuch.AsR.W.FranklinmoremildlyputsitintheIntroductiontohisfacsimileeditionofthefascicles,“Thevariorumedition...editedbyThomasH.Johnson,translatedthemechanicsofthepoemsintoconventionaltypeand,inpresentingthemchronologically,obscuredthefasciclestructure.Suchanedition,thoughessential,doesnotservethesamepurposesasafacsimileofthefascicles”(ix).

To turn to the recent enthusiasm for the so‑called interface‑free and thepressingneedforustocontinuetoreadwritinginterfaces,inFebruary2006NewYorkUniversityresearchscientist JeffHanunveiledtoa9endeesat theO’ReillyEmerging Technology Conference his affordable version of what he called aninterface‑free,touch‑drivencomputerscreen.Shapedlikea36‑inchwidedracingtable,thescreenallowstheusertoperformalmostanycomputer‑drivenoperationthrough“multi‑touchsensing”thatis,asHandescribesit,“completelyintuitive. . .there’s no instructionmanual, the interface just sort of disappears” (emphasis added).The phrases “completely intuitive” and “sort of” (it “sort of disappears”) promptthe question of justwhose intuition is driving this interface‑free interface. Theinterface‑free systemHan proposes is elegant, beautiful, and compelling—likewalkingintoagleamingwhiteandchromeMacstore—butacertheinitialpangsoflongingpassforthisnewestofthenew,whycontinuetolongforthissortoffalsetransparency?Whywouldwelureourselvesintobelievingthattheseinterfacessomehowofferustheabilitytotranscendtheinterfaceitselfratherthanofferusanever‑moredifficulttopin‑down,perhapseveninsidious,formofcontrolonourcreativeexpression?AsLevManovichremindsus,“theinterfaceshapeshowthecomputeruserconceivesofthecomputeritself.Italsodetermineshowusersthinkofanymediaobjectaccessedviaacomputer”(64).

Another contemporary example of insidious interface, directly related toliterary studies, isAmazon.com’s release of Kindle, which Jeff Bezos,AmazonfounderandCEO,describesasa“wireless,portablereadingdevicewithinstantaccesstomorethan90,000books,blogs,magazinesandnewspapers”(“AmazonKindle”).TheaimofKindle is to improve, ifnot supplant, thebook.However,


60

readingthefine‑printofthe“LicenseAgreementandTermsofUse,”youdiscoverthat“Youmaynotsell,rent,lease,distribute,broadcast,sublicenseorotherwiseassignanyrightstotheDigitalContentoranyportionofittoanythirdparty,andyoumaynotremoveanyproprietarynoticesorlabelsontheDigitalContent.”Theprogramalsowarnsagainst“ReverseEngineering,Decompilation,DisassemblyorCircumvention”andnotesthatallreadingandannotationwillbemonitoredbyAmazon:“TheDeviceSocwarewillprovideAmazonwithdataaboutyourDeviceanditsinteractionwiththeService(suchasavailablememory,up‑time,logfilesandsignalstrength)andinformationrelatedtothecontentonyourDeviceandyouruseofit(suchasautomaticbookmarkingofthelastpagereadandcontentdeletionsfromtheDevice).”Consequently,whileBezosproposesthatreaders“getlostintheirreadingandnotinthetechnology,”heisinfactaskingreaderstoseethrough the interface,as if itwereaneutralmediuminsteadofamediumthatpreventssharing,lending,orresellingthesee‑books;itdisallowsanengagementwiththee‑bookasanartobjectanditimbedsalayerofsurveillanceintoprivatemomentsofreading.

Howe,Werner,McGann,andSmith,amongothers,alreadyhavearguedthatEmilyDickinsonisexemplaryinherkeenawarenessofthelimitsandpossibilitiesofthewritinginterfacesofhertime:pen/pencil/paper.8ThisfacetofherworklongprecededMarshallMcLuhan’sfamousdictumthat“themediumisthemessage”andtheemergenceoftheterm“interface”inthe1960storefertotheinteractionbetweentwosystems.Dickinsonwasacutelyawareofthelimitsandpossibilitiesofthetriadsothat“Shapesandle9erspunonandplaywitheachother.Messagesaredeliveredbymarks”(Howe,“SomeNotes”).Nowhereisthisunderstandingofthewritinginterfacemoreevidentthaninherpinnedpoems,especiallythoseshecreatedacersheturnedawayfromthebook‑inspiredformofthefasciclein1864.

InanoteattheendofthesecondvolumeofTheManuscriptBooksofEmilyDickinson,FranklinclaimsthatDickinson’spracticeofpinningwasoneofseveralmethods sheusedwhen sheneeded to add extra lines.Hewrites that “[e]arlyin1862shepinnedslipstoaccommodateoverflowwhenshereachedtheendofasheet,butshecametofavoranotherway:aseparatesheetcarryingonlytheadditional lines. . . .WhenEDceasedbinding fascicle sheets, about1864, shereverted topinning slips to sheets tomaintain theproperassociation” (1413).ButDickinson’spinningonanextrasheetdidmorethanestablisharelationshipbetweenthecontentofthetwopiecesofpaper.Themanuscriptversionofapoemsuch as “Wemet as Sparks ‑Diverging Flints” (MB II 1052) can be read as aninstance of Dickinson’s desire to draw a9ention (if only her own a9ention) to

LoriEmerson

61

themediatingeffectsofpenandpaper,andthereforetodenaturalizethewritingmedia by experimenting with ways to disrupt a tendency to see through thewritingsurface.Firstdated1864byFranklinandthenlaterchangedto1865,thispoemappearsontheversoofSet5,designatedA92‑14;twoadditionalmetricallines are pinned to the bo9omof the poem so that the final lines of the poem“proper”arecovered.Or,perhapstherearethreelines,dependingonhowoneregardsDickinson’s line breaks.Not surprisingly, however, the version of “WemetasSparks‑”inFranklin’s1998variorumeditionhasstrippedthepoemofitsrivetingphysicalityandofthisself‑consciousdiscourseonwritingthroughwritingmedia.Inthecaseofthisparticularpoem,Franklin’stranslationseemsnottobethesamepoematall.

First, the manuscript version of the poem shows us a writer who has apreciseunderstandingofthedimensionsofthepage—infact,giventhatshewritesaconsistentdistancefromboththelecandtherightedgesofthepage,itappearsnotonlyasthoughshehasapainter’ssenseoftheshapeandsizeofherle9ersandwords, the sizeand shapeof thepageasa canvas,but alsoas thoughherline‑breakswere intentional (seeFig.1).9Notypefaceor typographicalspacingcanadequately translate thehandwri9enword—it certainly cannotexpress theparticularvisualandaural resonances in theshapeof the le9erS, forexample,that are echoed across thepage to associate “Sparks”with “Sent,” “sca9ered,”“Subsisting,”andfinally“Spark”;notetoothelowercasesof“sca9ered”whichis a sort of literal representationof sca9ering.Print, however, only transcribes.Below,theversionofthepoemwithoutthepinningisonthelec;theversionwiththepinningthatcovers,rewrites,orwritesoverthefinallinesofthepoemisontheright:

WemetasSparks‑WemetasSparks‑DivergingFlintsDivergingFlintsSentvarious‑sca9eredSentvarious‑sca9eredways‑ways‑WepartedastheWepartedastheCentralFlintCentralFlintWereclovenwithanWereclovenwithanAdze‑Adze‑SubsistingontheLightSubsistingontheLightWeboreWeboreBeforeWefelttheBeforeWefelttheDark‑Dark‑


62

Fig.1:A92‑14a,withpinning.“WemetasSparks‑DivergingFlints.”Facsimile.ReprintedbypermissionoftheTrusteesofAmherstCollege.PoetrytextbypermissionofthePresi‑dentandFellowsofHarvardCollege,fromR.W.Franklin,ed.,ManuscriptBooksofEmilyDickinson(Cambridge:HarvardUP)©1981.

LoriEmerson

63

WeknewbychangeAFlintuntothisDay‑betweenitselfperhaps‑AndthatetherialButforthatsingleSparkSpark

Herewearepresentedwithasituationwhereeverythingseemstocontributetoourunderstandingofthepoemasacomplex,multifacetedobject.Atthebeginningof“WemetasSparks‑”boththelinebreak,whichcreatesasmallspaceofblankness,andthedashservetodramatizethesuddenmovementofanignitedfleckintotheair.Infact,meetingassparkswhile“Diverging[as]Flints”(andthen“clovenwithan/Adze‑”)expressesthetensionDickinsonexploresthroughoutthepoem:anycoming‑togetherinvolvessimultaneouslyamerging,alossofsingularityaswellasasenseofseparatenessthatcanneverbeovercome.The“we”ofthepoemisboththecatalyst(theflint)andthethingcatalyzed(thespark).Notetoothatthereisonlya“we”andneveran“I.”

Dickinsonuses techniques of enjambment andmerges the literal and themetaphoricalwiththephysicaldimensionsofwordsthroughoutthepoem.Thelinebreakseparating“Sentvarious‑sca9ered”from“ways‑,”forexample,enactsasca9eringsincetheeyemustmovefromonesideofthepageanddowntotheother. It also seemsmeaningful that the version of the poemwith the pinningreplacesorchangesthelinesunderneath.Thepinningcreatesasenseofuncertaintyor of thinking poised between two conflicting positions. This uncertainty isexpressedintheword“perhaps,”whichisplacedonalinebyitself,aswellasinthereferencetoasingularspark,whichinthiscasedoesnotappearonalinebyitself.Thepoemissimultaneouslytheversiononthelecandtheversionontherightaswellasbeingtheversiononthelecortheversionontheright.Itisabout(thetensioninherentto)singlenessanddoublenessevenasitphysicallymanifestsitselfasbothsingleanddouble.

Thereisalsoatemporarinesstothepinninginthesamewaythatclothingispinnedeitherasaformoftemporarystitchingorasawaytomarkwherefabricmaylaterbesewn;theslipofpaperhasbeenpinned,notsewn,tothesheetofpaperandsoitissimultaneouslyboundandunbound.10Further,MartaWernerpointsoutthedistinctivenessofpinning,for“[u]nlikebinding,whichispremeditated,permanent,andserial,pinningisinstantaneous,temporary,random”(308).11Assuch,thepinningin“WemetasSparks‑”ismorethananinstanceofDickinsonwriting“thealternativeonaslipofpaper”asawayto“completethepoem”;thepinningmakesimpossibleanyreadingofthepoemascomplete(Franklin,Poems848).


64

Similarly,Dickinson’shandwritinginthispoem,heruseofthespaceofthepage,isaformalandthematicelementofthepoemandsoisuntranslatableintoanyothermedium, inmuch thesameway that it isuntranslatableacross time;readersofthetwenty‑firstcenturycannothelpbutbringadifferentsetofreadinghabitsandassumptionstoDickinson’swriting.Thepoemisself‑consciousofitswritingmedium, and thus encouragesus to resist thenotionof the “interface‑free.”ItimplicitlyarguesagainstclaimssuchasthosemadebyJaishreeOdinwho,inwritingaboutthedigitalpoetStephanieStrickland,declaresthat“Unliketheprintmediumwherecontentisthesameastheinterface,thedatabaseproducedbythewriterforthedigitalmediumneedsaninterfacetomakeitaccessibletotheuser.Forthefirsttimewehaveadistinctionbetweenthecontentoftheworkandtheinterfacetoaccessit.”ForOdin,“contentisthesameastheinterface”intheprintmedium;forDickinson,thisisnotthecase.Forexample,thetypographicalversionof“WemetasSparks‑”inFranklin’svariorumeditionisaneater,tidierpoem than Dickinson’s handwri9en one; with “Wemet as Sparks ‑ DivergingFlints”and“Sentvarious‑sca9eredways‑”printedasonelineratherthantwo,allthelinesarethesamelength.Breakingthesecondlineat“ways”ratherthan“sca9ered”—that is, at the metrical rather than the visual unit—adds a moreorderlydimensiontothepoem:sca9eringreferstorandomorchaoticmovementwhereas“ways”canrefertopredetermined(albeitmultiple)directions.Further,inFranklin’sversion, linesoneandthreeendin“Flint”andthereforemaketherepetitionmoreobvious,asaretheend‑rhymes“Dark”and“Spark”inlinessixandeight. In thisversion,however, thesenseof thepoemasamaterialartifactthatissimultaneouslysingleanddoublehasbeenoccluded,makingatleasttherepresentationof“WemetasSparks‑”flatandhierarchical:Franklinprovidesaprimarytextsupportedbyasecondarysetofalternativelinesandanevenlessimportant(indicatedbythesmallfont‑size)listofthelinebreaksastheyappearinthemanuscript.12Andeventhishierarchyofprimarytext,alternatelines,andline‑breaksisexcludedfromthemoreaffordable,andsomorecommonlyused,readingeditionofFranklin’sThePoemsofEmilyDickinson.

2.0TheDigital/DickinsonPoemasThinkertoyTo read the present moment into Dickinson and to read Dickinson into

the contemporary, we should see her pinnings and her variants not so muchas bookbound examples of what is called chunk‑style hypertext but more as“thinkertoys.” To clarify, chunk‑style hypertext consists of links that allowthe reader/user tomove fromone page to another—the type of hypertext that

LoriEmerson

65

is almost entirely responsible for the current structure of the Internet. CallingDickinson’s pinnings or variants hypertext does draw a9ention to the physicalseparatenessof, andconnection to, eachwordor chunkof text,but it isunlikethehypertextweuseontheInternet,whichisdirectionalandlinear.LinksontheInternetmoveusthroughthetextoraseriesoftextsinwayspredeterminedbythewriter/programmerandsoquiteunlikethewaythepinningfunctionsin“WemetasSparks‑”;herethepinningmakesthepoembothtwo‑texts‑as‑one‑textandtwoseparatetexts.Thissimultaneouslysingleanddoublenatureofherworkcannotbereplicatedonline,butanInternet‑basedtranslationof“WemetasSparks‑”couldbecreatedbylinkingtogetherscannedimagesofthesheetandthepinning,layeringoneovertheother.GiventheentirelydifferentreadingexperiencethatisfosteredbytheKSMinterfaceandthebook,suchatranslationwouldhavetobeapproachedasa“thinkertoy.”

ThistermwascoinedbyTheodorNelsoninhis1987“ComputerLib/DreamMachines.”13 Hewrites: “By ‘Thinkertoy’ I mean, first of all, a system to helppeoplethink....Idefineitasacomputerdisplaysystemthathelpsyouenvisioncomplexalternatives....[T]hewri9enwordisnothinglessthanthetrackslecbythemind”(330).FollowingNelson,insteadofemphasizingtheproductionofneweditions, versions, or translations of Dickinson’s manuscript poems, we couldemphasizethewaysinwhicheitheragivenreading/writinginterfaceorasetofconceptual termsbelonging toaneraofa reading/writing interfaceallowus tothinkexpansivelyabouttheworkathand—tomapthemulti‑layeredintricaciesofagivenpoem.Hypertextoranyotherdigitalmodeofrepresentationbecomesless a “radicallynew information technology” (Landow3),whichdisrupts ournotionsofreader/writer/text,andmoreanothertechnologybywhichtore‑positionourselvesinrelationtothereader/writer/text.ToreadhypertextoranyotherdigitalwritingmediainrelationtoDickinsonlinksherworkwithdigitalwritingsuchasMaryFlanagan’s“[theHouse]”andJuddMorrisseyandLoriTalley’sTheJew’sDaughter.Digitalwritingisnolongeronlyaninstanceofaforeign,textualobjectoffascination—suchdigitalwritingalsobecomesatextualinstantiationofasharedongoingpoeticexplorationofthespecificlimitsandpossibilitiesofthespace/timeof writing and of language as an elusive and yet multi‑dimensional dwellingspace.Like“WemetasSparks‑,”Flanagan’sandMorrisseyandTalley’sworksare ineluctably both this and that—they are readable andunreadable, intimateandother,variableandstatic.ToreadandthinkthroughDickinson’swork,then,istobepreparedforotherstubborn,uncomfortableworksthataresimultaneouslysingleanddoublematerialartifacts.


66

MaryFlanagan’s“[theHouse]”isadigitalpoem‑environmentthatconsistsof strings of transparent, three‑dimensional, occasionally intersecting, shicingboxesthatareaccompaniedbypairedlines,whichinturnarere‑combinedasthepieceprogresses;wemaywatchthemastheymoveacrossthescreen,growlargerorsmallerorrotatesothatwereadtheminreverse—asifwecouldwalktothebackofourlanguage.Or,shouldwewanttodeterminetheshapeanddirectionof

thetext/boxes,wecantrytointeractwiththetext/boxesthroughthemouse.SinceFlanaganwritesthat“[a]sinmuchofelectronicliterature,theexperienceoftheworkasanintimate,interactive,screen‑basedpieceisessentialtounderstandingandappreciating it,” theexperienceof interactingwiththis text‑environment isprimarilyoneofstruggleordifficultysincethereisnowaytogaincontroloverthetext—nowaytodeterminethedirectioninwhichthepieceshics.Pullingrightonthemousedoesnotguaranteethatthetextwillalsoshicrightorrotateclockwise;moving themouseupdoesnotnecessarilyallowus toventuredeep inside the

Fig.2:“[theHouse]”(2008)byMaryFlanagan.Screenshot.ReprintedbypermissionofMaryFlanagan.

LoriEmerson

67

boxesorthetext—wemayhavejustflippedtheboxes/textormovedtoabird’seyeviewof this strangecomputer‑text‑organism.Thus,despitemy interactionswiththetext,despitethefactthatIcan“read”mostofthelines,initsdifficulty“[theHouse]” is at least inpart about themediating effects of an interface that,despiteFlanagan’sclaimabove,offersintimacywhilealsodecliningit.ThisworkembodiesthecomplexitythatdefinesNelson’sthinkertoy.

To further extend the reading of Dickinson into and out of Flanagan,Dickinson’s“WemetasSparks‑”hasaninbuiltaspectofinstabilitybecauseofthepinning;eachtimeIreaditIhavetheimpressionofreturningtothesameobject,thesametext—thesamewords—overandoveragain.However,themultiplicityof“[theHouse]”teachesusthatthereareatleastsixdifferentversionsof“WemetasSparks‑”:thefirstversionwouldincludetherectoandtheverso;thesecondversion would include the recto, the verso, and the pinning as an alternativeending; the third would include the recto, the verso, and the pinning as anadditionalendingandsoon.Shouldwedecidetotakeintoaccounttheindividualreadingexperienceswebringtothepoemanddependingonwhetherwerelyonafacsimileversionornot,theremaybemanymoreversions.Thus,“WemetasSparks‑”deniesclosureandstabilityjustas“[theHouse]”does—itisjustthattheconventionsofthebooklullusintobelievingthatabookboundtextisstable.

Reading“WemetasSparks‑”alongside“[theHouse]”bringstolightthewaysinwhichtheinterfaceofeachpoembearswithitadifferentsetofstandardsforreading.Forexample,whiletherearesoundandvisualpa9ernsinDickinson’spoem,thereisnoauralelementinFlanagan’swork,andthevisualstructureisnotdownoracrossapageorasheetofpaper—itisarotationinandaroundavirtualthree‑dimensionalspace.Further,despitethevariabilityofDickinson’spoem,onecanindeedquotefromit.Incontrast,whileonecanquotesomeofthedifferentandrecombinedlinesfromFlanagan’spoem—forexample,“givingemptiness/le9ershave their sharpness”or“thestudyalmostfinished /mouth to tellme”—whatwouldbethepoint,especiallywhenwecannotreadthewholetextorknowwherethetextbeginsandends?Infact,thistextmaybemany,manytextsthatoughttobedifferentiatedfromeachotherintermsoftimeratherthanspace.Thus,ratherthanaskourselveswhetherapoemononesideofthepageisseparatefromthepoemontheoppositeside,weshouldaskwhetherornotthetextweseeatfivesecondsintothepoem‑viewingisseparatefromthetextweseeacertwominutesofviewing.Ifweinteractwiththetext,asFlanaganencouragesustodo,wethenhaveanearlylimitlessnumberoftextsandreadingexperiences.


68

Moreover,thefactthatwecannotreadFlanagan’spoeminthesamewaythatwedoDickinson’s,oranyotherbookboundpoem,meansthatbothdemandthatwefindthepointinthetextwhereourreadingpracticesfailus.Itisatthatpointoffailurethatwebegina9endingtotheparticularitiesoftheeventofeachpoem—theoriginaleventofthephysicalwritingofthepoemthattookplacethroughaparticularinterface,theeventofourreadingsofthepoemthattakeplacethroughyetotherparticularinterfaces—andbegintakingaccountofwhatisgainedandlostthrougheachmediation.

JuddMorrisseyandLoriTalley’scollaborativeTheJew’sDaughterreadsandreworksboththebookboundpagethroughthedigitalandthedigitalthroughthebookboundpage,aself‑consciousdoublenessthatreadsitsownwritinginterfaceinmuchthesamewaythatDickinson’spinnedpoemsdo.MorrisseyandTalleydescribeTheJew’sDaughteras“aninteractive,non‑linear,multivalentnarrative,astoryspacethatisunstablebutnonethelessremainsorganicallyintact,progressivelyweavingitselftogetherbywayofsubtletransformationsonasinglevirtualpage.”It consists of roughly 608 pages of recombinant chunks of texts and, indeed,“page”ismorethanaskeuomorphhereaseachscreenoftext—awhiterectanglewithmostlyblacktext—hasbeenmadetoemulateapageinabook.Itispossibletoreadthetextoneachpage/screenfrombeginningtoend,lectoright,asonewouldapageinabook—butthisis“reading”inthelimitedtermssetbythebook.Moreover,becauseeachpageofTheJew’sDaughterincludesoneblue‑highlightedword,le9er,oralphabeticcharacter,muchlikeastandardhypertextlink,theonlywaytoreadthetextonagivenpagefrombeginningtoendisbyrefusingtotouchor interactwith it. Thehyperlinkswe are accustomed tousing on the Internettakeustoanewpage,onewhosesubject‑ma9erisclearlyrelated(atleastinthemindofthecoder)totheoriginalpage.MorrisseyandTalley’s“links,”however,arenotclickable,nordotheytakeustoanewpage,leavingtheoldpagebehindstillintact.Theyare,instead,liketemporallinkages;runningyourmouseoverthebluewordactivates theflashprogrammingandresults in thedisappearanceorreplacementofrandomchunk(s)oftext.Fromonepagetothenext,thereadercanneverpredicthow,where,orwhythetexthaschanged.Thus,asKatherineHaylespointsout,readingherebecomesanactofmemorizationasyouneedtobeabletovisualizeorrememberthecontentofthefirstpageinordertoknowwhathaschangedorinordertoreadthetextinthemannerweareaccustomedto.

Morrissey andTalley have created a temporally based palimpsest in thatchunksoftextsarelayeredontopofeachotherinthereader’smindasthetextisunfoldedovertime;fromonepagetothenext,sometextstaysthesameand

LoriEmerson

69

Fig.3:TheJew’sDaughter(2008)byJuddMorrisseyandLoriTalley.Screenshotofpage1.Underlinedtextappearedinblueintheoriginal.ReprintedbypermissionofJuddMorris‑sey/LoriTalley.


70

Fig.4:TheJew’sDaughter(2008)byJuddMorrisseyandLoriTalley.Screenshotofpage2.Underlinedtextappearedinblueintheoriginal.ReprintedbypermissionofJuddMorris‑sey/LoriTalley.

LoriEmerson

71

in a sense remains legible while other chunks of text are replaced, reworkingboth themeaningof the text that staysbehind in the reader’smemoryand thetext that isstillvisible. It isconceivable, then, thatTheJew’sDaughter isnot608individualcombinationsoftextchunksbutratherapieceofconceptualwritingthat challenges the reader to assemblementally all 608pages into a single textwhosemeaningdoesnotresideonanyonepage.Forexample,inthescreenshotofthefirstpage(Fig.3),onecanseethatthereferencestotheactivitiesof“she,”“I,”and“you”resultinanindeterminatetextthatisnotparticularlyaboutanything.Or rather, the text couldbe about a “she,” “I,” and“you,”but thesepronounsalsocouldbereadasstand‑insforacommentaryonthetextitself—forthereadermustwonder,“Willshe[orit]disappear?”Likewise,thefollowingsentencecouldbereadtoconfirmthatTheJew’sDaughter isapalimpsestictextwhichcanonlybereadorunderstoodcumulatively,overtime:“Tohandtoyoutheconsecratedsumofyourgics,thesecretyouimpartedpersistentlyandwithoutknowledge,theseexpressionsofyourwillthatluredand,inacumulativefashionbecameamessage.”Giventhewaythetextdoublesasameta‑commentaryonboththebookandthedigital—itcommentsonthebooktocommentonthedigitaltocommentonthebook—itisfi9ingthatthe“you”couldbebothreaderandwriter.Ifthetextisindeedindeterminate,thewriterineffecthandstothereaderthegicofreadingthetextinhisorherownway;or,ifthetextisonlylimitedlyindeterminate,thepassagecouldbereadassayingthatthereader’sreadingofthetextmakeslegiblethewriter’ssecrets,expressionsofthewriter’swillthatareonlylegiblethroughthereader’sworkovertime.

Thesameinterpretativetechniqueisapplicabletoindividualsentences.In“Youasked could I buildyou fromapile of anonymous limbs andparts,” thereadermight askwhether it is thewriterwriting about the act of compiling acoherenttextfroma“heapoflanguage”(toinvokeRobertSmithson)orwhether,withsomepronounslippage, it is the readerwhomustbuild the text fromthewriter’s608pagesofscrapsoftext.ThewayinwhichTheJew’sDaughterdoublesitself to comment on the reader/writer/text triad fromasmanyperspectives aspossible is frequently reinforced.Acer running themouse over “criminal” onthefirstpageandthenreadingthesecondpageinrelationtothefirst,thereaderdiscovers that the sentencebeginning “Tohand toyou the consecrated sumofyour gics” has been replacedwith three sentences: “June through clouds likesculpted snowdemons.My fortune had said,You are about to cross the greatwaters.Buthow,now,tobegin?”(Fig.4)Andthesentencefromthefirstpagethatpreviouslyread“Ihadavisionofdirtandrocksbeingpouredovermychest”has


72

beenchangedto“Shehadavisionofdirtandrocksbeingpouredovermychest.”I shouldnote,however, that there isadegreeofstability to the text:eachpageconsistentlychangesinthesameway.

Shouldthereadertooquicklydismisstheworkasyetanotherexampleofa random text‑generatororon thebasisof its apparentlyarbitrary structureorunreadibility,itisimportanttonotethatthepiecealwaysbeginsonthefirstpageandproceedsmethodicallyfromonepagetothenext.Withonlyonemouse‑overoneachpage,thetextcanonlychangeinonepre‑determinedmanneratatime.WhileproceduralworkssuchasRaymondQueneau’sCentMilleMilliardsdePoèmesgivetheimpressionofbearingonlyarbitrarilyconstructedmeaning(s),thisworkallowsforreaderlyinterventionatthesametimethatitforegroundsitsconstructedness;itwasinfactwri9entobereadinaparticularmanner.Also,theorderofthetextonlybecomesrandomwhenthereaderclicksonthesmallsquareatthetoprightof the screen and is then taken towhatever page number has been typed intothebox.Ironically,then,itisonlywhenthereaderusesthecomputer‑simulated“page turner” that the textbecomesnonlinear andunstable, although linearityandstabilityarecommonlyascribedtothebookandnonlinearityandinstabilityareascribedtotextmediatedbythedigitalcomputer.Notsurprisingly,“pages”fromTheJew’sDaughterareresolutelyofthedigitalmedium;theycanneitherbeprintedoutnorcantheybecutandpastedtofacilitateimmobilizationofthetextforscrutinyortobringtobeartechniquesofclose‑readingthatapplyonlytothebookbound.Sincewecannotprintitout,this608‑pagetextwillneverbereadinitsentirety,therebyfurtherse9ingitselfapartfrombookboundconventions.

LikeDickinson’smanuscriptpoems,whichdigitaltechnologyhelpsustoseeassimultaneouslyexploringthelimitsandthepossibilitiesofthepaper/peninter‑faceandthedoublenessofmeaning,TheJew’sDaughterbuildsonaDickinsoniancritique;itsmediationthroughthedigitalcomputersimultaneouslyworksagainsteasyassumptionsaboutthelinearity/nonlinearityofthepage—evenasitemulatesthepage—andagainsttheincreasingtransparencyofthestructureofhyperlinks,evenasitemulatestheconventionalappearanceofthelink.Itgesturestomarkersoffamiliaritywhileundoingthesesamemarkers.AsMorrisseytellinglyputsitinaninterviewwithMa9hewMirapaul,“Becauseittakestheparadigmofthepage,youcanseethatit’snotapage”(Mirapaul).Surelywecouldsaythesameofahand‑writ‑tenmanuscriptpoembyDickinson?

LoriEmerson

73

Notes

1. ThatmyapproachissoinflectedbySusanHoweismostcertainlyduetoherpowerfulinfluenceonme as a graduate student at theUniversity atBuffalo; oneof thefirstseminars I took with her was on Emily Dickinson, a course both terrifying in itsintensityandthrillinginthesenseofintellectualadventurousnessHowebroughttoclasseveryweek.

2. InTechné:JamesJoyce,Hypertext&Technology,LouisArmandtakesupasimilarapproachtoarguenotsomuchthat“Joycewasnecessarilyinsomewaycognisantofafuturepossibilityofhypertext”butthat“Joyce’stextcanbesaidtosolicithypertext. . .theextenttowhichJoyce’stextcanbesaidtobothcallforandmotivateahypertextualityirreducible to a stable field” (xi).Armand and I differ, however, in that he is notinterestedinlookingretrospectivelyatJoyce“fromthepositionofcurrentcomputingtechnologies”(xi).Retrospectivelyviewingearlierauthorsthroughthelensofcurrentculturalpractices issimplyunavoidable;“currentcomputingtechnologies”saturateoureverythought,ourverylanguage,andthisfactshouldbeacknowledgedopenlyratherthansidestepped.

3. In Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin’s foundational bookRemediation, they argue thattherepresentationofonemediuminanotherisaconstitutivefeatureofnewmedia.Ina2007articlebyKatherineHayles,“Intermediation:ThePursuitofaVision,”shereworksBolterandGrusin’s“remediation”toinvoke“intermediation,”ortheprocess“whereby a first‑level emergent pa9ern is captured in another medium and re‑representedwiththeprimitivesofthenewmedium,whichleadstoanemergentresultcapturedinturnbyyetanothermedium,andsoforth.Theresultiswhatresearchersinartificiallifecalladynamichierarchy,amultitieredsysteminwhichfeedbackandfeedforwardloopstiethesystemtogetherthroughcontinuinginteractionscirculatingthroughthehierarchy”(100).Hayleswrites:

In electronic literature, this dynamic [of intermediation] is evokedwhenthetextperformsactionsthatappeartobindtogetherauthorandprogram,playerandcomputer,intoacomplexsystemcharacterizedbyintermediatingdynamics...theperformanceisdesignedtoelicitemergentcomplexityintheplayer,whopossessesmuchmorepowerfulandflexiblecognitivepowersthan the computer. If this is indeed the result, then theprogram’s effectsareno longersimplymetaphoric, for ithas literallychanged thehuman’sperceptionsand,totheextentthatperceptionsprovidethescaffoldingforcognition,cognitiveprocessesaswell.(105)

4. AllthedigitalwritinginthisessaycanbeenfoundintheElectronicLiteratureCollection.DescribedbyAdalaideMorrisasa“harbingerofarevolutioninthought,”theElectronicLiteratureCollectionVolume1 (orELC1) is thefirstandcurrently theonlyanthologyofelectronic literature; it ispublishedontheInternetandfreelydistributedonCD‑ROM.

5. Thispracticeofself‑reflexivescholarshipintheageofthedigitalisnicelyparalleledbyMarthaNellSmith’sworkwiththeDickinsonElectronicArchives,whichisinformedbywhatshecallsa“technologyofself‑consciousness”:

Self‑consciousness isa technologywithwhichhumanistsare familiar. . . .ButIaminterestedinthewaysthatthistechnologyunse9lesusandinwaysthat thisunse9lingcanbeeffectivelyexploited . . . thetechnologyofself‑consciousnessrequiredbycomputerencodingoftextsproducesahealthyself‑consciousnessaboutwhatBrunoLatourandSteveWoolgardescribeinLaboratoryLifeas‘black‑boxing’—whichoccurswhenone‘rendersitemsofknowledgedistinctfromthecircumstancesoftheircreation’....Maintaining


74

relentlessself‑consciousnessabouthowcritical‘facts’havebeenproduced,abouthowitemsofknowledgearepartofthecircumstancesoftheircreation,iscrucialforresponsiblyprovidingtheprovisionalitythatcharacterizesthebestkindofscienceofchaos.(851‑852)

6. Eventhemeaningoftheexpression“themotherofthemall”hasbeentransformedby digital computing. Thoseworking in the IT industry use the phrase to refer toDouglasEngelbart’sgroundbreakingdemonstrationfrom1968inwhichhepresentedhis invention of the keyboard‑screen‑mouse (KSM) interface and introducedteleconferencing, videoconferencing, email, and hypertext. Now, the KSM is soseamlessly apart of our everydayworkand leisure—mediatinganddefiningmostactsofwriting,reading,andthinking—thatwenolongernoticeitasaninterfaceatall.StevenJohnsonwroteinhis1997popularmanifestoInterfaceCulturethatweneedtostartdevelopingcriteriabywhichtojudgeourinterfaces,that“iftheinterfacemediumisindeedheadedtowardthebreadthandcomplexityofgenuineart,thenwearegoingtoneedanewlanguagetodescribeit,anewcriticalvocabulary”(18).Idoubthecouldhaveenvisionedthattenyearslaterwewould,asaculture,remainlargelyoblivioustothewayinterfacesworkonusandthatwewouldbepoisedtobeginaneraofthe“interfacefree.”

7. HenryPetroski,theauthorofThePencil:AHistoryofDesignandCircumstances,pointsoutthatunderstandingthedevelopmentofsuchwritinginterfacesasthepencil(orthepen)“helpsustounderstandalsothedevelopmentofevensosophisticatedaproductofmodernhightechnologyastheelectroniccomputer”(334).

8. In fact, it is almost becoming commonplace for critics to now assume that anyreproductionofaDickinsonpoemconstitutesa translationandthatherpoemsare,inmanydifferentsenses,handwri9enpoems.However,Dickinsoncriticsarefarfromagreeingontheextenttowhichmanuscriptsregisteraboveallotherversionsofherwork.WalterBennMichaels,forinstance,pointsoutinhis2006TheShapeoftheSignifierthatoncewetreateverythinginaDickinsonpoemasmeaningful(includingtheshapeofherhandwriting,thetypeandsizeofpapersheused)thennothingismeaningful.Similarly,DavidPorter,PeterCampbell,andDomhnallMitchellareskepticalof theextent towhichwecandeterminewhatDickinson’s intentionswerewithrespect tothephysicalpropertiesofhermanuscriptpoems.Inparticular,inhis2000workEmilyDickinson:MonarchofPerceptionandthenagaininhis2005MeasuresofPossibility:EmilyDickinson’sManuscripts,Mitchell isconcernedtopointoutthatwhileheseesSmith,Howe,McGannandWerner’sworkasinvaluable,hehas“misgivingsaboutthekindsofpositivisticassumptionsthatunderpinsuchaproject[ofreturningtoDickinson’smanuscriptpoemstoestablishareliablebodyofwork],or,moreaccurately,misgivingsaboutthelackofpublisheda9emptstomeasuretheaccuracyofclaimsbeingmadeonbehalfofDickinson’smanuscriptpractices”(EmilyDickinson200).

9. In contrast, Christina Pugh has convincingly wri9en about how recent criticismemphasizesthevisualandexperimentalnatureofDickinson’swritingat thecostofa9endingtoherinnovative,even,asPughputsit,transgressiveuseofmeter.

10. AsMartaWernerwrites of another pinned poem, “Clogged onlywithMusic, liketheWheelsofBirds‑”(A821):“Thepincomplicatestheplayamongpast,present,andfuture....Forhere,theexpectationsofclosureorparousia...maybeendlesslypostponed,orreversed,withthedropofapin”(307).

11. ThereadermayalsofinditusefultoconsultMartaWerner’sessay“‘AWoeofEcstasy’:OntheElectronicEditingofEmilyDickinson’sLateFragments”inTheEmilyDickinsonJournal16.2;hereWernerfurtherreflectsonrepresentingDickinson’sworkviadifferentreading/writingmedia.

LoriEmerson

75

12. WhileIdonotdiscussthisaspectof“AsOnedoesSicknessover,”thepoemthatisontherectoofthemanuscriptversionof“WemetasSparks‑,”itshouldalsobea9endedtobecauseitinformsourreading:thepoemoneachsideofthesheetmeetsanddepartsfromtheother.Forinstance,eventhoughtheslipofpaperispinnedtotheverso,wecanalsoseethepinandthepiercingmadebythepinontherecto,whichhappenstobebesidethetwovariants“Habit”and“handle.”Clearly,noeditedversionofthispoemhassofarbeenabletoreplicatethisadditionaldoublenessof“WemetasSparks‑.”

13. Nelson is be9er known for coining the terms “hypertext,” “hyperfilm,” and“hypermedia”inhis1965article“AFileStructurefortheComplex,theChanging,andtheIndeterminate.”

WorksCitedThefollowingabbreviationsareusedtorefertothewritingsofEmilyDickinson:

FrThePoemsofEmilyDickinson.ed.R.W.Franklin.3vols.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,1998.Citationbypoemnumber.

MBTheManuscriptBooksofEmilyDickinson.ed.R.W.Franklin.2vols.Cambridge,MA:TheBelknapPofHarvardUP,1981.

“AmazonKindle:LicenseAgreementandTermsofUse.”Amazon.com.4Dec.2007<h9p://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200144530>.

Armand,Louis.Techné:JamesJoyce,Hypertext&Technology.Prague,CZ:UniverzitaKarlovavPraze,NakladatelstvíKarolinum,2003.

Bolter, JayDavidandRichardGrusin.Remediation:UnderstandingNewMedia.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2000.

Cameron, Sharon.Choosing Not Choosing: Dickinson’s Fascicles. Chicago, IL: Chicago UP,1992.

Dickinson Electronic Archives. Ed. Martha Nell Smith. 2008. 13 June 2008 <h9p://www.emilydickinson.org>.

Flanagan,Mary.“[theHouse].”TheElectronicLiteratureCollection.Volume1.Ed.N.KatherineHayles,NickMontfort,Sco9Re9berg,andStephanieStrickland.14Jan.2008<h9p://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/flanagan__thehouse.html>.

Funkhouser,C.T.PrehistoricDigitalPoetry:AnArchaeologyofForms,1959‑1995.Tuscaloosa:UofAlabamaP,2007.

Glazier,LossPequeño.DigitalPoetics:TheMakingofE‑Poetries.Tuscaloosa:UofAlabamaP,2002.

Han,Jeff.“JeffHan:Unveilingthegeniusofmulti‑touchinterfacedesign.”TEDTalks.15Dec.2007<h9p://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65>.

Hayles,KatherineN. “Intermediation:ThePursuitofaVision.”NewLiteraryHistory38.1(2007):99‑125.

Howe,Susan.MyEmilyDickinson.NewYork,NY:NewDirections,2007._____.“SomeNotesonVisualIntentionalityinEmilyDickinson.”HOW(ever)3.4(January

1987). 11Sept. 2008<h9p://www.asu.edu/pipercwcenter/how2journal/archive/print_archive/alertsvol3no4.html#some>.

Johnson, Steven. Interface Culture:HowNewTechnology Transforms theWayWeCreate andCommunicate.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks,1997.

Landow,George.Hypertext2.0:TheConvergenceofContemporaryCriticalTheoryandTechnology.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUP,1997.

Latour,BrunoandSteveWoolgar.LaboratoryLife.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUP,1986.Manovich,Lev.TheLanguageofNewMedia.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2001.Michaels,WalterBenn.TheShapeoftheSignifier.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUP,2006.


76

Miller,Cristanne.“WhoseDickinson?”AmericanLiteraryHistory12.1(2000):230‑253.Mirapaul,Ma9hew.“PushingHypertext inNewDirections.”TheNewYorkTimesOnline.

27 July 2000. 6 July 2008 <h9p://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/cyber/artsatlarge/27artsatlarge.html>.

Mitchell,Domhnall.EmilyDickinson:MonarchofPerception.Amherst,MA:UofMassachuse9sP,2000.

_____.MeasuresofPossibility:EmilyDickinson’sManuscripts.Amherst,MA:UofMassachuse9sP,2005.

Morris, Adalaide. “How to Think (with) Thinkertoys: Electronic Literature Collection,Volume1.”October 2007.TheElectronicBookReview. 11 January2008<h9p://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/distributed>.

Morrissey,JuddandLoriTalley.TheJew’sDaughter.13June2008<h9p://thejewsdaughter.com>.

Nelson,Theodor.“AFileStructurefortheComplex,theChanging,andtheIndeterminate.”TheNewMediaReader.Ed.NoahWardrip‑FruinandNickMontfort.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2003.134‑145.

_____.“ComputerLib/DreamMachines.”TheNewMediaReader.Ed.NoahWardrip‑FruinandNickMontfort.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2003.301‑338.

Odin,Jaishree.“TheDatabase,theInterface,andtheHypertext:AReadingofStrickland’sV.”Nov.2007.TheElectronicBookReview11Jan.2008<h9p://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/isomorphic>.

Perloff,Marjorie.“ScreeningthePage/PagingtheScreen:DigitalPoeticsandtheDifferentialText.”NewMediaPoetics:Contexts,Technotexts,andTheories.Ed.AdalaideMorrisandThomasSwiss.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2006.143‑162.

Petroski,Henry.ThePencil:AHistoryofDesignandCircumstance.NewYork,NY:AlfredA.Knopf,1989.

Pugh, Christina. “Ghosts of Meter: Dickinson, Acer Long Silence.” The Emily DickinsonJournal16.2(2007):1‑24.

Queneau,Raymond.CentMilleMilliardsdePoèmes.Paris:Gallimard,1961.Smith, Martha Nell. “Computing: What’s American Literary Study Got to Do with

IT?”AmericanLiterature74.4(2002):833‑857.Smithson,Robert.“AHeapofLanguage.”RobertSmithsonHomepage.6July2008<h9p://

www.robertsmithson.com/drawings/heap_p104_300.htm>.Werner,Marta.“‘AWoeofEcstasy’:On theElectronicEditingofEmilyDickinson’sLate

Fragments.”TheEmilyDickinsonJournal16.2(2007):25‑52._____. “The Flights of A 821: Dearchizing the Proceedings of a Birdsong.” Voice, Text,

Hypertext: Emerging Practices in Textual Studies. Ed. Raimonda Modiano, Leroy F.Searle,andPeterShillingsburg.Sea9le:UofWashingtonP,2004.298‑329.

partly - loriemerson

Documents