MARIA ENGBERG Born Digital Writing Poetry in the Age of New Media Abstract Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy presented at Uppsala University in 2007. Engberg, Maria. Born Digital: Writing Poetry in the Age of New Media. Uppsala University, Department of English, and Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Technoculture, Humanities, and Planning, September 2007. This study investigates a range of Anglophone digital poems, that is, poetic works created with and disseminated through digital computer media, for their visual, kinetic, and textual practices. I seek to articulate an analytic method grounded in close readings of selected poems. Out of several contemporary subgenres I have chosen to focus on poetic practices that raise questions about spatiality, temporality, kineticism, and word-and-image construction. My chief interest lies in the question of how poetic form emerges and is orchestrated in digital media and what forms of engagement these constructions present the reader with. As I focus on three clusters of poems, I propose terms such poemevents (Chapter Two), cinematographic poems (Chapter Three), and visual noise poems (Chapter Four). Underlying the main arguments of this study is an understanding of literary works in general, and digital poems in particular, as materially, culturally, and historically situated entities. In this study, such ―attention to material‖ is brought to bear on the digital poems that I analyze. Building upon N. Katherine Hayles‘s notion of a media-specific analysis, I propose a materially specific analysis. In line with this proposition, I investigate the spatiotemporal properties of digital poems in Chapter Two, kinetic word-and-image constructions of Flash poems in Chapter Three, and propensities of reactive multimedial animated poems in Chapter Four. A common feature of digital poems is the underscoring of a multisensory experience of poetry through visual, auditive, tactile, kinetic, and textual artifice. The level of interaction and physical engagement on the part of the reader of digital poetry is also often of utmost importance. To clarify and articulate the different roles that the reader of digital poems has to take on, I use compound terms: in Chapters Two and Four I refer to the expanded reader function as reader/user, and in Chapter Three I use the compound term reader/viewer/listener. I argue that the active embodied engagement that is required of the reader/user in the poems analyzed in Chapters Two and Four, and the denial of an active participation in the poems in Chapter Three is part of the works‘ materiality. Digital poetry as a field is expanding and changing; it would not be too daring to claim that the exploration and experimentation of the writing of poetry in the age of new media has only begun. I conclude the thesis by looking forward to what might lay ahead, and how literary scholarship can be inspired by the digital poetic work that is being done, and the questions about literary materiality that it poses. Keywords: digital poetry, digital literature, literary materiality, spatiotemporality, poemevent, cinematographic poems, visual noise poems. © Maria Engberg Printed in Sweden by Printfabriken, Karlskrona 2007. Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ i Notes on the Text ................................................................................................. iii Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One TECHNOPOETICS ............................................................................................... 13 Digital Poetry as a Field of Practices .............................................................. 15 Modes of Dissemination and Production ...................................................... 18 Digital Poetry, Materiality, Medium, and Meaning ....................................... 25 Chapter Two MULTIDIMENSIONAL POETIC WORLDS: Exploration and Manipulation .............................................................................................................. 43 The Digital Poemevent ..................................................................................... 44 Houses of Words ............................................................................................... 46 Spatiotemporality in Digital Literary Scholarship ......................................... 52 Strickland‘s Stars ................................................................................................ 57 Cayley‘s Landscapes ......................................................................................... 69 Chapter Three CINEMATOGRAPHIC POETRY: Animation and Multimediality ............... 89 ―Flash Poetry‖ .................................................................................................... 92 Visual Rhythms: ―YOUNG-HAE CHANG HEAVY INDUSTRIES PRESENTS‖ ..................................................................................................... 109 Chapter Four VISUAL NOISE POETRY ................................................................................. 115 Wysocki‘s Digital Illuminations .................................................................... 124 Print and Digital Strategies of Visual Noise ............................................... 133 Conclusion LOOKING AHEAD ............................................................................................ 143 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 151 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 165 Acknowledgments On resuming my university studies after having worked for a few years, I was asked by a then newly installed professor of English at Blekinge Institute of Technology to write an essay on Graham Swift‘s short story ―Seraglio.‖ On the returned paper I found a question: ―Have you considered graduate studies?‖ I had not. She opened up a world which before had seemed impenetrable, inaccessible, and, simply, not for me. This dissertation, which documents only a part of my intellectual work and growth during the past five years, is deeply indebted to my supervisor, Professor Danuta Fjellestad. An inspiring intellectual, she is also one of the most fascinating, perspicacious, and surprising human beings I have met. We are many who are in absolute awe of her work, her mind, and her never-ending energy and ingenuity. I had the good fortune to have two more amazing supervisors who have guided my work. Professor Rolf Lundén, whom I had the great luck to have as my cicerone into the mysteries of Uppsala graduate life, consistently asked insightful and careful questions to help my project along. My third supervisor, Professor Jay Bolter, has magnanimously shared his erudition and expertise in matters digital and classical. His response to my work was crucial in more ways than I can name. I am particularly grateful for his tutelage during my Fulbright year and other visits at Georgia Institute of Technology. My most heartfelt gratitude to both of you. Many thanks to Professor N. Katherine Hayles, whose work, lectures, and informal conversations have been important sources of inspiration and support. Thanks as well for giving me access to then unpublished material. I also want to express my gratitude to Professor Rita Raley for her insightful suggestions at my mock defense in March 2007 which made this a much better project. There are a number of poets, scholars, and colleagues in Sweden and abroad who have provided help and support throughout my graduate years. I want to thank Stephanie Strickland and John Cayley for their unfailing trust in my project and for many intriguing conversations. Thanks are due also to Loss Pequeño Glazier, Mary Flanagan, Chris Funkhouser, and Talan Memmott. I extend special words of gratitude to Professors Johanna Drucker and Jerome McGann whom I had the good luck of meeting during my crucial visit to the University of Virginia in 2005. I want to express my appreciation to Professor Michael Joyce for his advice during the two ICT & Humanities Summer Schools in 2003 and 2005, and during my visit to Vassar College in 2004. I am indebted to Professor Thomas Vargish, Dr. Peter Forsgren, and Dr. Kenneth Knoespel for their responses to my chapters during Work-in-Progress seminars in Karlskrona. My special thanks as well to Dr. Stephen Donovan. I want to thank my graduate colleagues at Blekinge Institute of Technology, Cecilia Lindhé, Dr. Vicky Johnson Gatzouras, Dr. Åse Nygren, and, in the last year, Mia Bäcke, for their support, understanding, and friendship. The list of the people who have been important to my intellectual development during my graduate years is long. Past and present members of the American literature seminar at Uppsala University, thank you all for reading and commenting on my work. i I want to mention Dr. Elisabeth Herion-Sarafidis, Dr. Erik Löfroth, Dr. Johanna McElwee, Dr. Ellen Matlok-Ziemann, Dr. David Watson, Frida Beckman, Anna Borgström, Dr. Colin Haines, Olof Landin, Anna Svensson, Fredrik Tydal, Dr. Eva Zetterberg Pettersson, Robert Österbergh, and Alan Pejković. I would also like to thank Ulrica Skagert, Van Leavenworth, and Dr. Erik Falk. For coffee room talk, and for being great colleagues at BTH, thanks to Dr. Lissa Holloway-Attaway,