Additions to the Periodisation of Digital Literature: the Third Generation

Piret Viires

Tallinn University, Narva rd 25, Tallinn 10120, Estonia [email protected]

Abstract. The paper examines the links between digital literature and digital humanities, as well as contributes an addition to the existing periodisation of digital literature. Digital literature is ‘digitally born’ literature, created and studied since the end of the 1980s and largely defined as a work with an important literary aspect that takes advantage of the capabilities and contexts provided by computer technology. In the periodisation of digital literature, two generations have so far been differentiated (late 1980s until 1995 and from 1995 until today). This paper adds a third generation to this periodisation, starting from 2006–2007 and linked with the development and spread of social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr). The paper defines the third generation of digital literature as literature created via social media, characterised by its de- mocracy, dialogue between participants, textual and narrative dynamics, and mixing of various forms of media. The overall conclusion is, however, that the content and essence of digital literature does not so much depend on the creative impulses or inner-literature movements, but instead on the development of computer technology. Thus the periodisation of digital literature is dynamic in time and depends on the technological solutions that are emerging in a given period and the types and works of digital literature these new technologies can inspire.

Keywords: Digital humanities, digital literature, social media literature

The paper examines the links between digital literature and digital humanities, as well as contributes an addition to the existing periodisation of digital literature. Digital literature or electronic literature (in this paper these two terms – ‘digital literature’ and ‘electronic literature’ – are used as synonyms) is ‘digitally born’ literature, created and studied since the end of the 1980s and defined by Electronic Litera- ture Organization as a work with an important literary aspect that takes advantage of the capabilities and contexts provided by computer technology (Hayles 2008: 3). In „A New Companion to Digital Humanities“ (Schreibman, Siemens, Unsworth 2016) digital (electronic) literature is discussed in the framework of digital humanities and in the chapter “Electronic Literature as Digital Humanities” Scott Rettberg mentions as examples of electronic/digital literature hypertext fiction, kinetic multimedia poetry, interactive fiction, generative poetry and fiction, interactive drama, database narra- 2 tives, network “styles” based on new writing practices specific to networked commu- nication technologies etc. (Rettberg 2016: 127). In the periodisation of digital literature, N. Katherine Hayles has so far differentiated two generations. The first generation from late 1980s until 1995 (classic period), the second generation from 1995 until today (postmodernist period) (Hayles 2008: 6– 7). The first generation of digital literature is mostly text-based hypertext fiction and hypertext poems (e.g. Michael Joyce „a afternoon: a story” (1987, 1990), Stuart Moulthrop “Victory Garden” (1995)). The second generation of digital literature are more elaborated interactive and multimodal works of literature, where different media (text, image, video, sound) are combined together (e.g M. D. Coverley „Califia” (2000), Caitlin Fisher „These Waves of Girls” (2001), Maria Mencia „Birds Singing Other Birds’ Songs” (2001)). In my paper I will add a third generation of digital literature to this periodisation, starting from 2006–2007 and linked with the development and spread of social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr) and smart gadgets. I will define the third generation of digital literature as literature created via social media, characterised by democratising literary production (see also Hammond 2016: 137), dialogue between participants, textual and narrative dynamics, and mixing of various forms of media. The examples of such kind of third generation digital literature are twitterature, Face- book and Tumblr poetry, collective Facebook serial stories, stories on Wattpad etc.. The main difference from the second generation of digital literature is that these kind of literary works are created using the advantages of Web 2.0 – it is easy and conven- ient to create content and publish it online. The authors do not need any specific technological or programming skills and the social media environments provide good and accessible platforms both for authors as well as readers. One example of the third generation digital literature is so-called Alt Lit (Alterna- tive Literature). The term came into circulation in the United States in 2010 and Ad- am Hammond describes in his book “Literature in the Digital Age” Alt Lit as a com- munity, medium or style. Alt Lit is published and circulated on the internet and social media and the authors are extremely active users of social media. The texts are often collaborative, and are edited based on feedback from readers. (Hammond 2016: 142) Besides that the leading figures of Alt Lit like Tao Lin and Steve Roggenbuck have created strong and visible authorial images and as Adam Hammond puts it “its best- known practitioners tend to be those who spend the most time online” (Hammond 2016: 144). In my paper I am also discussing the works of some Estonian authors who can be defined as examples of the third generation of digital literature – Kaur Riismaa, Liina Tammiste and Keiti Vilms, who have all used social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter) for their creative work. I am arguing that some of these authors can be asso- ciated with the term Alt Lit. However, we can say that the real challenge for the third generation social media authors is not so much how to get the texts published online. The real challenge is to find readers and reach the right audience. Social media literature is a growing phenomenon and has changed the ideas about authorship and readers; readers for instance can combine aspects of oral culture with 3 written literature. Therefore it is also argued that research of reading processes in digital environments could benefit from the knowledge in ethnology (see Kajander 2015). The overall conclusion of my paper is, however, that the content and essence of digital literature does not so much depend on creative impulses of the authors or inner-literature movements, but instead on the development of computer technology. Thus both the definitions of digital literature as well as the periodisation of digital literature are dynamic in time and depend on the technological solutions that are emerging in a given period and the examples of digital literature these new technologies can inspire. However, if we speculatively want to predict some visions about the future, then we could say that the next fourth or fifth generation of digital literature might not be connected with social media platforms at all, but with the development of virtual real- ity technologies. This all brings us to the question about the borders of literature and also to the very essential question – how to define literature?

References

Hammond, A.: Literature in the Digital Age. An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York (2016). Hayles, N. K.: Electronic Literature. New Horizons for the Literary. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (2008). Kajander, A.: Studying E-books and Reading Experiences in Ethnology. Ethnologia Fennica 42, 70–78 (2015). Rettberg, S.: Electronic Literature as Digital Humanities. In: Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., Unsworth, J. (eds.) A New Companion to Digital Humanities, pp. 127–136. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (2016). Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., Unsworth, J. (eds.): A New Companion to Digital Humanities. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (2016).