Hybrids?
In her “Electronic Literature”, N. Katherine Hayles dwells a lot upon the idea of hybridity:
“…electronic literature is a ‘hopeful monster’ composed of parts taken from diverse traditions that may not always fit neatly together”/“hybrid by nature” (4)
“hypertext fictions also mutated into a range of hybrid forms” (7)
“the complex hybridization … between human cognition and the very different and yet interlinked cognitions of intelligent machines” (22)
“a linguistic practice in which English is hybridized with programming expressions” (21)
“The interiorized subjectivity associated with print has not disappeared, but it is being hybridized by a complex dynamic in which a subvocalized human voice … is no longer the primary goal of screen displays” (118)
It seems that everything emerging in today’s culture is predestined to merge with some other form and become a hybrid/mutant. Does it mean then that the contemporary world with its tendency to “de-differentiation” (93) “deconstructing the boundaries” (9) to create “complex … formations” (47) is not able to produce pure forms any more?
What I think is interesting is for the all the discussion of hybrid texts is that she doesn’t seem to put much stock in hybrid readers. I thought that was really weird. I do not have the book on hand this moment, but there is a part in chapter 3 where she describes teaching hypertext by pairing a book-geared student and a game-geared student–”an experienced gamer” and a “graduate student” were her words. The two working together would be able to accommodate for the medium-reading skills the other lacks. She then elaborated how the grad-student would be fluent in subvocalization and other skills necessary for good critical reading while the gamer could more easily navigate and understand the space.
I am not so sure why “Generation M” will need such guides and I am surprised that Hayles’ didn’t highlight anything about hybridized readers in this section. It seems plain to me that you would soon have many readers who could do both–be fluent in both reading texts and reading games–especially since video games already demand so much reading. They are not an exclusively visual medium by any means.
What do you mean by “pure forms” Natasha?
and going off of what Katherine said..or in response to..I don’t quite see what the difference is between reading a text and reading a game. I’m speaking from a pure story-line approach here because my experience with video games does not extend beyond the narrative-focused Japanese RPG’s.
Hayles’ approach does seem better suited for an older generation that didn’t grow up with the text-game hybridity that we did. Maybe she didn’t see past her own generational needs in her assessment?
I’m guessing that’s what happened. Also, it has been my experience in gaming studies–that if the game is Japanese (even translated), there is very little chance academics ever get around to playing it. I have a few ideas why: a.) these games (J or USRPGs) are all very long (60+ hours) and I’ve seen from some gaming studies articles that 1-player games in academia seem to be played in parts, not to completion, b.) Japanese games do not always get European releases so European scholars are forced to import these games if they even hear of them, c.) Gaming studies is incredibly Western-centric, and d.) gaming studies is generation-centric, the critics are not fluid at moving across generations and seem to stick to the generation of gaming they are most familiar with.
There is also resistance in some camps of the field right now to in-depth content/story study–you have to peruse the journals first prior to article submission as some (like GameStudies.org) are not interested in content study. (GameStudies.org is also founded by Aarseth whose grid for studying games Hayles described as “blind to content”–which is the criticism that comes up again and again about Aarseth’s research field, ludology.)
I felt a little like Hayles’ division of readers and gamers reflected the field’s current mindsets and, like you said, the feelings of “an older generation that didn’t grow up with the text-game hybridity that we did.”
If you think about it, everything today has/ or will become a hybrid of some sort. So many things are being put together for the better. For example, theres a new computer coming out thats a touch screen, like a cell phone. I think thats a good thing. However, older people may not agree because they can barely catch up with the computers of yesterday. But doesn’t this hybrid (touchscreen computers) seem to be a lot more easier and accommodating for those who are somewhat computer illiterate? Thats pretty much what I think of hybridity in general, also agreeing with Katherine, the fact that there are two different readers reading the same text from both angles could be a better experience for those readers. Maybe Im off, but thats what I think.
In response to Natasha’s original post… I think we learn a lot from what we read so in turn it is only natural that the forms would be similar to texts we have experienced in our past. Just like in class tonight when we were discussing the many times that Shakespeare’s story lines have been recreated/repurposed. These story lines have been around for hundreds of years; they work so others want to in turn use similar plot lines.
I wish I knew more about video games than I do. However, this weekend I was playing the new Super Mario Bros and found that the story line (even the specific theme of each level) is almost exactly the same as SMB 3, and of course the princess has to be rescued. Again the story line was reproduced (granted it was by the same organization).
Hybridity must be very trendy in the field of English Studies right now. I seem to recall it coming up in lots of conference titles on the UPenn cfp site. Click on this link and search ‘hybridity’:
http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/
PS – I grew up playing Ms. Pac Man, Space Invaders and Donkey Kong on the Atari. Not very hybrid-ish.
I followed the link . Thank you for it. You are right; it looks like hybridity and interdisciplinarity are the most popular trends there.
Unfortunately, I have little experience in playing video games. I understood Hayles’s division of gamers and graduate students a little bit different though. For me it served to support her argument about the necessity of bringing various expertise to the digital arts analysis, an example of “cool” and “traditional” humanities (page 37) collaborating to see beyond the traditional.
You are right, Chelsea, saying that hybridity is not obligatory a bad tendency to follow. I was just wondering where this tendency of mutation of “pure forms” (I mean singular objects and phenomena as they appear originally) springs from.