Hypercompendia

Love this: Siri shuts down any questions about dividing zero by zero

When Eliza first came out, then Facade everyone absolutely had to test them out with mind games and stress them with dopey questions and manipulations.

So, with decorations down and cookies frozen for the future, I’m turning attentions back to writing. And of course, to projects left unfinished or unpublished, or just untweaked into format as guilt overwhelms new creative genius.

One of those projects is a hypertext that needs a real nice Spanish guitar plunking. However, frustrated with rejections and reticence, I bought myself a) a broken guitar, and b) a gourd thumb piano:

I’ve no recognizable musical talent. However, I do possess both determination and an oblivion to failure.

Finally, it came to me: the first three bars: 1-1-3-3/1-1-3-3/1-1-3-4-3.

I’m sure I can fill 20 minutes or so from there.

For a man is a moment
like rain on a mid-summer day
a white blinding Nor’easter
the paintbrush of autumn
and burst buds of
the spring lilac tree

Or a man is a moment
like the flash of volcano
washing waves of flood waters
shaping hands of a dust storm
the tornado sweeping
the land

Some few moments endure
some few men live forever
known by their art on film
and on paper and
the touch of their hand
on your heart

Sometimes, you will read something you’ve written a while ago, a sentence, a phrase, and say, damn, that’s good. Sometimes you’re not even sure you wrote it. Where did it come from? How did you even think of it?

Even better, someone reads your work and brings up things you didn’t even see in it yourself.

Maya Zalbidea just sent me a link to a Psychoanalytical Interpretation of Blueberries which she had written up and published in Caracteres. I need to read through it again, but a quick read brought me up short. Her insight into the piece saw so much more that I myself, as author, wasn’t aware of putting into the story even as I wrote it. And now, a few years later, it makes me wonder if writing fiction in particular is done half with an awareness of writing and language skills and half with information stored in our minds through experience–often not personally our own but rather an accumulation of things we’ve seen, read about, heard about that automatically became important enough to save.

Do we make our own metaphors in our subconscious as we call these memories of information we likely would not be able to recall if asked? Is it just there and by some magical process brought to the forefront to find its way into our stories? Like the black bear as metaphor for my spouse (I suspect) that shows up in my dreams?

I’ll get more specific with this as I read Maya’s intriguing interpretation and may be able to make some links within my own mind as to the story, the characters, and my experiences. I can see very clearly how she came to her suggested conclusions by her exploration of the story. I may need to read Blueberries again to get back into that mindset, that place closer to whatever past data I must have drawn from. The pool of the mind. Fascinating.

On the TV cartoon series “Family Guy,” the writers chose to kill off a major character (Brian, the family dog) on a recent episode. The public uproar inspired media coverage and twittering and Facebook posts and pages to express not only (some) viewer outrage, but an attempt to reverse the event and its implications in the series.

Today I also noted that one of my favorite PBS shows, “Doc Martin” in its latest season (which is not yet available here in the U.S.) has chosen to write into the script an automobile accident in which a starring character is not killed, but injured. Here again, some of its audience is upset by the scene and is voicing that displeasure and shock. Some using as a basis for their opinion that it’s too real for what they expect as a comedic entertainment.

My question is this: While audience reaction is certainly the main goal of any art form, at what point does it interfere with the writer’s freedom of expression? His/her right to write what was in his/her head rather than to allow the reader/viewer to rewrite the script more to their liking? I remember a young woman in one of my creative writing classes whose critique was always focused on rewriting students’ stories to a happy ending.

When I first got into the study of narrative hypertext and the possibilities it offered I believed that the reader “wrote” the story by controlling his choice of links to wander different plots of story. As I wrote hypertext narrative, I realized that the original author still maintains control by the necessity of keeping the flow of narrative to whatever ultimate end or endings he has devised to his story.

This may be why hypertext does not have the appeal to a wider audience. People REALLY want control of the story, particularly when it is implied as it is by hypertext form.

What then, would make it more effective to meet the demands of today’s social media conscious and highly vocal reader? Shall the writer include specifics as to where the choice will lead? Should it offer the choices as did “Choose Your Own Adventure” Books so that the reader has the potential of making a more informed decision? As hypertext stories are written now, it seems that the highlighted word that offers a link to another area of story is still a mystery as to where it takes the character and the reader. The choice of word to offer as the link is often a clue (i.e., “local bar” versus “church” but even then it’s the original writer’s connection and not the reader’s.

It’s quite a dilemma. What exactly can we as writers do to upgrade our use of the medium to match the new audience of readers?

One of the more mundane uses of Eastgate’s Tinderbox, but the map view certainly does the job and I’ve used it for house plans as well.

First of all, let me say that I’ve always been one to pick the wrong battle. To hold my tongue until it finds escape when I’ve let down my guard. Secondly, I’ve apologized to the injured party three times (though no acknowledgement has been made by them).

Here’s the situation: A members only writers’ site to post stories, poems, along with a forum to discuss writing matters and posting etiquette and news of the literary world. The site, though by invitation only, has been ongoing for about five years, expanded to just under 5,000 members, with about 100-250 currently active. The site, however private to post to, is open to viewing by the public.

Since the ultimate purpose is to share their work, writers often post a story and post links to it using other social networking platforms such as Facebook, twitter, etc. Primary reason is to share–as we all understand the need for an audience or else it’s like writing in your locked diary–and links to the piece will bring readers outside of the site’s circle, perhaps even encouraging them–if they’re writers–to request an invitation to join. These readings are counted and show up as a number of “Views.” Views don’t really tell you if people have actually read the item; I’ve clicked on posted stories intrigued by the titles or opening lines only to find that I do not have time to read a longer story, that it’s poetry which really needs to drag me in immediately or I’m outta there, that it’s politically themed or a genre that I’m not taken by, or that the opening lines were the only thing good about the piece. Still, that quick click and click out count as a view.

There are other elements of acknowledging a posted piece: that of the star or favorite (again, a click that shows up in an accumulated counting–though you can click again to remove); and the best of all (in my mind), leaving a comment of either appreciation of the work or suggestion, anything that you feel the work has brought up to you. Each member feels differently about the numbers (views/stars/comments), some completely ambivalent and some desperately absorbed with them. Me, I care, but it’s not what instigated my action to call out a particular story that suddenly was off the charts on the views.

6,000 views in less than a couple of days. Only a single story, by a well known writer, surpassed that number of views and it took years of remaining onsite. All others in the 1000-4000 range had also been there for years. The average immediate response to a story, within a week’s time is under 200. This story had 0 stars and only about 6 comments. But 6,000 views!

Obviously something was amiss–or appeared to be and was noticed by those members who had seen strange things happen via a quirk of algorithm, by trolling or spamming, or by clever manipulation. When the first mention was made of the oddity here I, like a fool, chimed in.

Here’s where it gets exciting; all hell broke loose. From my high horse, determined to defend the integrity of the site, I was my passive/aggressive self in my sermonizing. By implying that the numbers were false, I of course was insinuating that the writer had manipulated the system. He insisted they were genuine, I still doubted. He contacted me via private message where I stated that I felt it was a discredit to him and his integrity if he was indeed abusing a crack in the system since this numerical standing placed him at the top of the top ten list and kicked off someone else’s work by doing so. From there, he took an image of our private mail, posted it online (along with my name) and tweeted a link to it. He personally called me rude, unkind, and insulting. His friends called me much worse.

Then as it turned out–he didn’t manipulate numbers; the site administrator confirmed that they all came in from a link posted on an unrelated site of which the writer was a member. Indeed, it was not his fault that 6000 people clicked the link to “read” his story.

I apologized again. But here’s the kink: the link was “I don’t know what this is, but it made me laugh and that’s enough.”

Wouldn’t you click on that?

But here’s me again, being a nasty picky purist, still feeling that the system as it was meant to work, has been hijacked–innocently–but its meaning indeed has changed completely. That single story posting is being held at the same standards as the thousands of other stories and poems there, but not under the same method.

I realize that I am seeing the scenario and the site from my own experience with it and with my own expectations of it; everyone uses it differently. Some use it in lieu of their own weblog. One has formed groups within the site to use as a personal filing by theme. Most are trying to catch the eye of editors. Many, in fact, are ecstatic that the site has had that much interest and thrilled to think of the post going viral (and, with the hope that theirs will too, I’m sure). But gee, somehow, I’m still self-righteously feeling that views aren’t reads and that somehow the value of the site and its intent has been damaged just a tad bit by this occurrence.

Note that while the incident may be known and recognizable to some, I have not and never did post names or links, nor call anyone names or use vulgarity. I’ve learned more from this and post this as a memo to myself as well as making a statement on the transparency of the internet. Private only means if both or all parties are trustworthy and professional. Online forums and commentary at social networking sites like Facebook or twitter or the like encourage an immediate reaction, often to the statement of a stranger, sans helpful hints like eye contact and body language that give one pause.

There are fantabulous things about the technology of the net but problems will arise as well. We learn as we go. Then again, I’ve always been one to pick the wrong time to mount my steed and go charging into the night. Let’s hope next time I can’t get my foot into the stirrup.

I’m excited about a new literary journal “Awkward Papercuts” that’s being formed. Currently dependent upon Kickstarter funding, it will be another of very few journals focused on audio/visual poems and narrative and as a new media enthusiast, I’m donating to the project and encourage other artists, writers, poets, musicians, to help out as well.

Michael Dickes is a talented lyricist, musician, poet, and friend from Fictionaut where I’ve had the pleasure to view his work. Michael is dedicated to expanding his own artistic endeavors and has always supported the work of others as well.

Check out the video samples that are on the Kickstarter page.

Technology has given us social networking and social networking has given the audience (of any medium: newspapers, internet, television, telephone, etc.) a voice. That voice of the reader/viewer has just broken through the literary fourth wall.

This morning I received two emails from WordPress to approve two comments made on a 2006 Spinning post entitled, “Similes that Sizzle, Fizzle, Drizzle Out Your Ears” that was merely a point made about metaphors and similes by adding a visual.  The comments:

“I wanted to describe drizzle”

“Not to sizzle/fizzle/drizzle out my ears”

Both comments were made within a minute by the same person from Dubai. She/he evidently used “similes to describe drizzle” as the search term in Google.

My initial reaction to the comments was, “So?” I mean, what am I supposed to do about it? Go complain to Google. Refine your search terms. Learn something about description and simile and make up your own.

But there is more going on than a student’s frustration with the internet and the fact that the more we use it, the slower and dumber it seems to be. Like a microwave oven that amazingly heated a meal in two minutes, two minutes fifty years later seems like too long.

So that didn’t surprise me but what did is taking the time to respond by entering a comment. Prior to the internet it was rather tedious to research through physical books to find what you were seeking. On all the wrong leads as well as the good ones, you didn’t leave your mark, no one knew you were there, there was no one on the page to respond to, no ears or eyes to vent your frustrations or even your eureka! moments. Online, even a blog represents a person and while both the writer and the commenter are unknown to each other, there is communication of sorts, particularly when a comment is made.

But I rarely get comments on weblog posts, though there is heavy traffic on literary reviews I’ve posted over the years. Spam is easy enough to filter out but the school semesters are thick with online searching as literary critique via class papers comes due. The comments above took time to type up, fill in the form, go through approval. There appears to be a tendency to blame the post, as written by me, for not providing the proper information the commenter was seeking. This doesn’t truly surprise me either as it seems the norm in society today, but still, when you think about it, here’s this student (I’m guessing) looking for the easiest, fastest method of finding a way “to describe drizzle” and getting upset enough with what’s being laid at her feet (or rather, within her fingertips on the keyboard) and feeling somehow gypped in the process.

Interesting. The new media technology is definitely effecting a change in our way of thinking, of interaction, of learning.