Recently, however, I was introduced to another type of medium that failed to capture my intellectual attention long enough to get across its point, if there even was one. Shelly Jackson’s hyper-textual “Patchwork Girl”, mass produced in the form of a CD-ROM, could be related to a book on tape in that it relays a jumbled story not through pages, but through the screen of the reader’s computer. Yet, as each mouse click took me further into the links that uniquely altered what part of the story I read, I began to realize that this medium was far from any book on tape I had ever listened to, and the experience is nothing like that of a printed novel. I started the story over (went back to the title page) numerous times; I read words and I observed pictures, but I could never fully give my attention to this form of reading because it was not only confusing, but it was also not easy to follow. The reason why this medium appears to fall short of relaying a story that should fit together like a puzzle is because of the way Jackson put her story together. As a reader, a medium will engage my mind better if the message being delivered flows in a consequential fashion. I couldn’t logically follow where the links were taking me, nor could I make a completed story out of each different pathways that the title page lead to. The interactive, hyper-textual storyline that “Patchwork Girl” uses in an attempt to capture the reader like a novel in fact does just the opposite. Hypertext should not be perceived as a novel because its medium falls short of the main qualities of a novel that enable a reader to become engaged in the storyline.

The interactive storyline our electronic age has introduced as a new medium cannot acquire the same degree of remoteness that a printed novel can, for the most part, brag about. By remoteness I am referring to the experience of getting lost in a book, an experience I do not get when reading anything online. The highly mediated quality of hypertext takes away from the “get away” aspect of the novel in the sense that the web’s access “changes [the] perspective of [what] ‘faraway’ [means]” (120). With the click of the mouse the millions of connections to anything that has been updated to the World Wide Web is accessible; this closeness to anything and everything proves to be more of a distraction than one might think. With an interactive interface the mystery and excitement of getting lost in a book is lost because, unlike in printed novels, hypertext reveals the blueprints of the story. Novel’s gain their fame from the enthrallment of ‘getting lost’ and it is the lack there of in hypertext in which “the image [loses]…much of its…power” (120).  No longer is the reader instantly immersed once he or she reaches the bottom of the page because now the screen can scroll on infinitely when reading a hypertext. The page has been replaced by a never-ending series of words in which the reader cannot fully become engulfed by the author’s storyline.

As the average reader has to focus more on picking his or her way through the links to discover the path they wish to be on, they are concentrating less on actually following the plot thoroughly. In a printed novel one page leads to the next; the succession creates a definite before and after to base the cycle of events upon. Hypertext on the other hand, “with [its] visual media [and lack of] detail and inner sequentially,” is a more disruptive form of reading (122). Because the electronic age rushes things along, its goal is to make everything simpler. The depth of a novel cannot be felt in a form of text that “hastens transitions” from one idea to the next; a story is meant to be something to dive into, not merely a walk in shallow water (121). The interactive storyline of hypertext almost eradicates the idea of sequence, seeing as following the same links each time still leaves nothing solidly behind as the viewer moves from one link to the next. As Birkerts would point out, hyper-textual stories have no sense of “history” and it is because of this very reason that hypertext comes of as less engaging (122). How is a reader supposed to continue devoting attention to a story that does not have layered information to support the next set of material the viewer arrives at?

Rather than leading the reader along a developed storyline, Jackson appears to set in front of us a maze rather than a individual pathway. Now there may be some readers that enjoy an interactive story where they become the storyteller; however, for me this is not the typical experience of a novel. When I make the time to sit down and read a book I am looking to be removed from the real world and placed into the mind of the author. I am almost disturbed by the number of links and choices that the hypertext offers to the point that I cannot enjoy the story that Patchwork Girl tries to, ironically, ‘patch’ together. A novel engages based upon the emergence into the text, the words, that when correctly assembled, form an almost light at the end of the tunnel feeling: guiding the reader forward towards the bright light, yet assisting the walk by placing the reader on an enclosed path. While hypertext, on the other hand, just presents a light shining in your face and pushes the reader into the blinding abyss: nothing is recognizable, you can’t turn back, and you have not a clue where you are going to end up. From my exploration of Patchwork Girl, it is not a novel. On the contrary, I feel that Shelly Jackson’s hypertext belongs to the next generation of what will be called books- that is if we still call them that. With my frequent interaction with ‘compposting’ on Word Press (a blog) it seems more relevant for me to relate Patchwork Girl to a specific blog rather than to a novel.

Recently, however, I was introduced to another type of medium that failed to capture my intellectual attention long enough to get across its point, if there even was one. Shelly Jackson’s hyper-textual “Patchwork Girl”, mass produced in the form of a CD-ROM, could be related to a book on tape in that it relays a jumbled story not through pages, but through the screen of the reader’s computer. Yet, as each mouse click took me further into the links that uniquely altered what part of the story I read, I began to realize that this medium was far from any book on tape I had ever listened to, and the experience is nothing like that of a printed novel. I started the story over (went back to the title page) numerous times; I read words and I observed pictures, but I could never fully give my attention to this form of reading because it was not only confusing, but it was also not easy to follow.

The reason why this medium appears to fall short of relaying a story that should fit together like a puzzle is because of the way Jackson put her story together. As a reader, a medium will engage my mind better if the message being delivered flows in a consequential fashion. I couldn’t logically follow where the links were taking me, nor could I make a completed story out of each different pathways that the title page lead to. The interactive, hyper-textual storyline that “Patchwork Girl” uses in an attempt to capture the reader like a novel in fact does just the opposite. Hypertext should not be perceived as a novel because its medium falls short of the main qualities of a novel that enable a reader to become engaged in the storyline.

The interactive storyline our electronic age has introduced as a new medium cannot acquire the same degree of remoteness that a printed novel can, for the most part, brag about. By remoteness I am referring to the experience of getting lost in a book, an experience I do not get when reading anything online. The highly mediated quality of hypertext takes away from the “get away” aspect of the novel in the sense that the web’s access “changes [the] perspective of [what] ‘faraway’ [means]” (120). With the click of the mouse the millions of connections to anything that has been updated to the World Wide Web is accessible; this closeness to anything and everything proves to be more of a distraction than one might think. With an interactive interface the mystery and excitement of getting lost in a book is lost because, unlike in printed novels, hypertext reveals the blueprints of the story. Novel’s gain their fame from the enthrallment of ‘getting lost’ and it is the lack there of in hypertext in which “the image [loses]…much of its…power” (120). I completely agree with Birkerts’ belief that books are what engage us and can become a private and solitary place for the mind; yet hypertext seems to do just the opposite by placing the reader amidst everything that it is almost impossible to concentrate on the text itself (Birkerts).  No longer is the reader instantly immersed once he or she reaches the bottom of the page because now the screen can scroll on infinitely when reading a hypertext. The page has been replaced by a never-ending series of words in which the reader cannot fully become engulfed by the author’s storyline.

As the average reader has to focus more on picking his or her way through the links to discover the path they wish to be on, they are concentrating less on actually following the plot thoroughly. In a printed novel one page leads to the next; the succession creates a definite before and after to base the cycle of events upon. Hypertext on the other hand, “with [its] visual media [and lack of] detail and inner sequentially,” is a more disruptive form of reading (122). Because the electronic age rushes things along, its goal is to make everything simpler. The depth of a novel cannot be felt in a form of text that “hastens transitions” from one idea to the next; a story is meant to be something to dive into, not merely a walk in shallow water (121). The interactive storyline of hypertext almost eradicates the idea of sequence, seeing as following the same links each time still leaves nothing solidly behind as the viewer moves from one link to the next. As Birkerts would point out, hyper-textual stories have no sense of “history” and it is because of this very reason that hypertext comes off as less engaging (122). How is a reader supposed to continue devoting attention to a story that does not have layered information to support the next set of material the viewer arrives at?

When writing a paper, novel, or any other form of textual information, it is essential to constantly assume that the reader knows nothing about the information being presented. The reasoning behind this is that a stronger argument will form as the author attempts to explain the information from all angles possible. This creates a sense of history, if you will, behind the main points you as the author are trying to make and allows the reader to have something to look back on in order to further understand what is being said. Hypertext lacks this sense of history and due to this loss, readers are left to assume for themselves what the writer may have been referring to around every corner. “Patchwork Girl” has the right to its individualistic ideas that emerge from Jackson’s interpretation of Frankenstein; however, this minimal background that there is a connection between “Patchwork Girl” and Frankenstein is not sufficient when trying to understand the channels of Jackson’s title page.

Rather than leading the reader along a developed storyline, Jackson appears to set in front of us a maze rather than a individual pathway. Now there may be some readers that enjoy an interactive story where they become the storyteller; however, for me this is not the typical experience of a novel. When I make the time to sit down and read a book I am looking to be removed from the real world and placed into the mind of the author. I am almost disturbed by the number of links and choices that the hypertext offers to the point that I cannot enjoy the story that Patchwork Girl tries to, ironically, ‘patch’ together.

A novel engages based upon the emergence into the text, the words, that when correctly assembled, form an almost light at the end of the tunnel feeling: guiding the reader forward towards the bright light, yet assisting the walk by placing the reader on an enclosed path. While hypertext, on the other hand, just presents a light shining in your face and pushes the reader into the blinding abyss: nothing is recognizable, you can’t turn back, and you have not a clue where you are going to end up. Hayles’ argues that “the medium constructs the work and the work constructs the medium,” proving that the method used for expressing ideas and the ideas themselves work together to create the overall picture; which medium is used only varies the display of the ideas, not the understanding of them (Hayles, 6). Therefore, if the medium can strongly support its main ideas then it will portray them in a manner that will allow for the ideas to be understood. Yet, in the same way if the ideas aren’t sufficient then the medium itself can come off looking poor because nothing is understood. From my exploration of Patchwork Girl, it is not a novel. On the contrary, I feel that Shelly Jackson’s hypertext belongs to the next generation of what will be called books- that is if we still call them that. With my frequent interaction with ‘compposting’ on Word Press (a blog) it seems more relevant for me to relate Patchwork Girl to a specific blog rather than to a novel.

For my final paper I chose to revise my fourth essay in which I argued that Shelly Jackson’s “Patchwork Girl” is not a novel based upon my definition of a novel. Using ideas from my first essay of the semester, I edited the paper by bringing the importance of history in a novel to light with another paragraph. I inserted new quotes and ideas into each of the other paragraphs in an attempt to revamp my new ideas by strengthening them with my old ones. Just as the course emphasized the old medium of the novel compared to the new medium of hypertext, I choose to combine the ideas of these two essays in order to connect the course ideas from beginning to end. Starting with my ideas concerning reading and writing and ending with my ideas on hypertext, this essay argues that, in my personal opinion the old medium of printed novels is better than the newer electronic hypertext.

As I continue to the next semester at Washington College I know that I have worked hard in this class to improve my writing skills. I hope to continue with intensive writing courses in order to keep my writing skills fresh because I feel like I did improve during this semester of English 101 in the areas that needed just a little more focus.

Works Cited Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 1994. Print.

Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein relays a message similar to the more highly mediated movie “Blade Runner”. The novel itself, laced with sentences expressing tone, speech pace, and the overall mood of the setting, depicts the tragedy of a successful experiment gone awry. The movie links scenes together, through edited cuts, in order to present the perfected depiction of a future world where higher technology threatens human life as the creation is denied its only hope. The film “Blade Runner” remediates Shelly’s Frankenstein through a more modern medium by emphasizing how a human invention can appear to be just as human as the creator’s themselves. Yet, as the audience, whether reader or viewer, observes the creation’s strong desire to be human, they learn the creations are only similar to humanity.

From print to screen, the quality of physical humanity both Frankenstein’s creature and the Nexus replicants embody highlights one commonality between the two storylines. In Shelly’s Frankenstein, the creature is assembled with human remains gathered from burial grounds and tombs (Shelly, 56). The visual picture that is painted for the reader rests in the literary choice of words and sentence structure. The reader receives a vivid portrait within his or her imagination of a being so hideous that his own master fled at the sight of him (Shelly, 61). Written word can accurately assemble individual thoughts within the mind; reading evokes the use of our imagination. When the medium changes; however, the senses have to analyze details in a different way. Frankenstein creates in each reader an individual depiction of a monstrous looking human, but Blade Runner actually presents the viewer with a specific image of who the replicants are in comparison to humanity. Assembled by genetic designers to maximum perfection, the replicants appear to be physically human in everyway possible. The movie’s medium allows for not only a given visual image of the replicants, but also their voices. Rather that relying, as novels do, on the imagination of the reader, this medium presents the viewer with a straight answer. A full description is put forth visually and audibly in a movie; there is no confusion of who is who because a movie does not leave room for imagination in that way. In a sense, the medium of video narrows down the brain’s activity in deciphering what things physically could look like and be to allow for a focus on what is actually happening instead.

Continuing the relation of humanity to the non-human creations in the two medium-differentiated storylines, it appears that the creations see themselves as “normal” beings until told otherwise. For example, after being brought to life, Frankenstein’s creature tried to follow his master around and speak with him; however, Frankenstein was so afraid of his own work that he continued to “escape” the being until finally he banished the creature from his sight forever (Shelly, 61). The novel’s medium creates a strung out adventure between creator and creation in which the creature continues to seek help from Frankenstein. However, after being degraded and ignored by his own creator the creature becomes vengeful towards the one man he knew could help him.

This chain of events is illustrated in a much quicker fashion on screen. In Blade Runner, replicants typically are found working in off-world colonies. However, Rachel, a replicant, is an experiment living within the Tyrell Corporation headquarters that doesn’t even know she is a replicant herself. Until told otherwise by a J-K test, Rachel assumed that she was human because, unlike a normal replicant, she had memories to prove it. The video depiction puts these few linked scenes together with accuracy and purpose. Unlike the novel’s slow description of the creature’s tragic rejection again and again by humanity, Blade Runner allows the viewer to acknowledge all the feelings associated with Rachel’s realization in a realistic amount of time. The comprehension required to understand a storyline in a novel differs in magnitude from the comprehension required to understand a movie’s scene. The choice of medium creates a difference in the time in takes to comprehend the entirety of a storyline in the manner the author or director breaks it down.

The desire of the creations to close the differential gap between themselves and humanity is the final relation between Frankenstein and the more mediated Blade Runner. Everyone wants to be loved, to be accepted and the non-human creations are no different. After learning that they are not normally accepted in society because of their non-human differences, the creations try at all costs to close the gap between themselves and there human counterparts. In Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein the creature, after being rejected by his master, begs for another of his kind to be created after the realization that no human will ever accept him. The novel creates a hopeless situation first for the creation since he was neither accepted nor loved; however, once the creature realized that his only desire was crushed, he created an endless and hopeless situation for Frankenstein, his creator, as revenge. This relates to the disparity of the replicants to find a way to live longer. After breaking free of off-world boundaries, the Nexus replicants attempt to gain a longer life by finding the engineers that made their pieces in the first place. The connection to Frankenstein in this set of scenes is the situation the creations cause for their creator. Roy, the leader of the replicants that escaped from the colony, kills Tyrell after learning that there is nothing that can be done to lengthen a replicant’s lifespan. Just as the creature in Shelly’s Frankenstein lead his creator to his deathbed, one of the creations in Blade Runner murdered the genius behind the replicant’s physiological design. The viewer can experience the frustration and hopelessness of the replicants as their passionate desire to be human vanishes forever through the video medium. The facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language during action scenes relay what words can merely address on paper. Shelly may have done an expressive job composing line after line of her horror story, but as the saying goes, a picture in itself is worth a thousand words. So does this put the medium of video on a higher pedestal than the art of writing?

The differences between written storylines and filmed storylines lie in the depiction of the message. The message linking the two very different mediums addresses the creation’s similarity to humanity as well as its difference that can never be acquired, no matter how great the hope. The film Blade Runner emphasizes this as its thesis, remediating an important aspect of Mary Shelly’s novel. The difference lies in the medium’s ability to express the same ideas with different materials. Frankenstein tells the tragic story of a creation experiment gone wrong by allowing the imagination to create its own picture based on the literature. Blade Runner on the other hand visualizes a creation story in which the creations give everything in attempt to become like their maker, only to face death and despair. The way in which both storylines were depicted is greatly affected by the choice of medium. Although video allows for a better identification of a character and quicker understanding of a scene, the strength that it lacks is the attention to detail that a written story will more easily portray. Thus, the comparison of the focused thesis of Frankenstein remediated in the storyline of Blade Runner proves that each medium is different, with its own strengths and weaknesses to tell a story.

Initially viewed by the reader as caring inventors, Prometheus and Victor use their knowledge to give life to “an inanimate body” with great enthusiasm (Shelley, 60). This enthusiasm arises from their idea that with this creation they will be praised for new, uncharted work. Victor’s quick monologues and seemingly rushed actions in the beginning of the novel emphasize his almost mad-scientist qualities. In one such monologue Shelly makes those qualities clear when Victor excitedly recalls how, “My limbs now tremble, and my eyes swim…but then a resistless, and almost frantic, impulse, urged me forward…for this one pursuit,” (Shelley, 58).   He has devoted the entirely of his well-being to this creation thinking all the time that once created he would be able to relax and to enjoy his good work.

Similarly, when Prometheus is given the task to create humans, he does so with great devotion. He had been instructed to create man for the entertainment of the Titans by his father Zeus; therefore, he worked with the mind set that his creation would bring him not only satisfaction, but also appreciation by the Titians. With great care Prometheus worked clay to form humans in the image of the gods, just as Victor took the image of man and recreated the human form. The two creators used their knowledge and energy, setting all else aside, with the thought that with their creation would come good.

The essence of goodness that the creator’s knowledge initially bestows upon the creation is refuted by an irredeemable sin in both stories. Once the creature opened his eyes, Victor should have rejoiced that his “labors” were over, as well as feel a sense of accomplishment since he had just recreated man. Instead, he feels as though he just committed some irredeemable sin for he states, “Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep,” (Shelley, 61). Rather than being satisfied he was mortified at the hideous creature he had created (Shelley, 60). The initial satisfaction he had so dutifully waited for never came and he shied away from his creation as if in hopes that it would just disappear.  Ironically it does later, only to support that knowledge is suffering.

On the other hand, Prometheus is greatly satisfied with his creation and so are the Titians. Yet, as time progresses, Prometheus, who takes the opposite approach of Victor and actually cares for his creation, realizes that his humans are in need. Acting with the compassion of a father, Prometheus commits his irredeemable sin when he steals fire from Zeus so that humans may have light, keep warm, and cook meat. It is here that he, like Victor, will be punished; however, unlike Victor, Prometheus is not punishing himself.

The creations that were once thought to set their souls free from labor and hardship are now in essence the chains that hold both Victor and Prometheus back.  Following the tragic awakening of his creation, Victor cannot bear to not only be his “master”, but also cannot even care for the being.  His hatred is to the degree that Victor even tells the creature, “Begone, vile insect! Or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust!” (Shelley, 93).  From such hostility the creature’s thoughts become vengeful and malicious due to the desperation he feels from his abandonment. Left alone in a world he did not wish to become a part of, the creature ends up a terror in Frankenstein’s life. He even threatens Frankenstein saying, “I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you,” after learning that his request for a mate has been brutally abandoned (Shelley, 146). Once the enemy lines were drawn, Frankenstein is forever chained to the consequences of his actions. His life becomes a downward spiral in which he losses the love of his life and begins a never-ending chase after the creature.

In Prometheus’ case he did his part to care for his creation; however, it was the degree that he attempted to provide for them that caused his demise. Seeing that his humans were in need, Prometheus stole fire from Zeus in order to provide heat, light, and allow meat to be cooked. After discovering the deed that had been done, Zeus punishes his son for stealing by literally chaining him to the Mountains of Caueasus. Here, an eagle would tear his liver out everyday; a pain he had to endure repetitively. The knowledge he used to create his human beings and the knowledge of a greater force (fire) that could assist them lead to his reoccurring pain. In his situation he literally was chained and endured pain because of his own knowledge.

In the beginning both creators initiated projects with the hope that the completion of the project would bring satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. However, the projects that began as a benefit are twisted by an irredeemable sin. This sin in the case of Victor alters his creation into a horrible mistake. In the case of Prometheus, it is not his creation that is a mistake, it is the effort that he puts forth to help it that is deemed wrong. In the end of both stories, the creators are punished by their knowledge and are chained to ultimate suffering. Therefore, ultimately their knowledge leads to each creator’s own demise in the end.