Fanfiction as Archonic Literature

Over the past two years, I have been interested in fan communities. As a writer, I have been particularly interested in fanfiction and how the formation of the fiction archive is a type of community that has a stake in the text it contains.  I think I would like to treat the community functions and mechanics of specific archives as a "text" for analysis. The texts that I will be examining in comparison are fanfiction.net and archiveofourown.org.

What follows are my journal response to the reading I've done of Abigail Derecho "Archontic Literature":

Derecho, Abigail. "Archonic Literature: A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of Fan Fiction." 

Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse, eds. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &, 2006. 61-78. 

     To some extent the presence of fanwork has more or less been present in culture for a long, long time (Derecho 62).  The taxonomy of fanwork seems like a debate that periodically resurfaces. The degree that this debate resurfaces in pop culture seems to depend on the popularity of the fanwork in question. The newest discussion seems to center on Fifty Shades of Grey. I have not read it, but popular knowledge claims that it originated as Twilight fanfiction. It is interesting that a quick search to confirm this (through the hive mind of google) brings up the automatic search terms: "rip off", "parody" and "plagiarism". The idea that this work could be based on a known literary icon seems to have scandalized certain bastions of internet pop culture. Not only is this interesting, but it seems to support Derecho's observation of fanwork as associated with derivative quality. In the "flame wars" that ensue over the legitimacy of Fifty Shades of Grey, the debate over fanwork is particularly contemporary and prominent. I'm sure there has got to be Fifty Shades fanfiction now. Augmentation of the archive is unstoppable!

     Derecho's 3rd category of fanfic taxonomy is a useful, if not readily apparent, way to think about classification (32).  I think there is a tendency to vacillate between the broad and narrow in these types of discussions. The golden ideal is usually somewhere in the middle. I sometimes trend toward's Oblomskaya's middle position: acknowledging the broad connectivity of text while considering what features might be "distinguishing particularities" for further discussion (Derecho 62). I recognize the need for classification in order to discuss a field, but I'd also trend more liberal and inclusive. Also the emphasis on "intertextuality" in the arguments preceding Derecho's categories don't seem to account for the framing, grouping, or paratextual elements of a body of text and seem limited by their emphasis on cross references.

     The framing device of the physical and ideal archive is an ultimate catalyst of relations between text. The paratext of the archive also tries to have a mission statement or rules for publication distinguishing its contents from other archives. In fanfiction, distinguishing statements are claims of quality, peer review, theme, content rating system. . . This is all paratext that dictates how fanfic relates to the system of the archive and similar stories. Archive guidelines are a type of "constraint based writing" imposed on archive authors. To study fanfiction without the symbiotic relationship between its archive and its community, is to miss a large part of it. Therefore, just focusing on Intertextuality seems short sighted. I appreciate how Derecho tries to move beyond this.

     Derecho talks about fanfic as not defined by "a relatively recent trend in audience response" (63). I think this observation is correct for several reasons. It is not a "recent trend" and reader response is NOT the one defining aspect.  However, it is interesting how the process of live, instant and constant reader reviews shape the direction of a story as it is published serially. Although this is an ideal often toted in utopian visions of equality in reader/author control, the online fanfic review and comment process seems to have been largely ignored in these arguments. 

     Derecho's reference to Derrida's notion of the archive on pg. 64 is a great way to think about archives and the functioning of fanfic sites. On a related note, there recently was a big censor war at fanfiction.netthat contributed to the splintering of communities, taking down of stories, and traffic at other sites. Despite how moderators and admins sought to control and censor the archive, the archive was still a thing of itself that had ultimate control of its own censorship. Admins don't have the ultimate control of material: both content and quality. It all goes to the monster of the archive, admin's rules then become part of the archive along with the various subversions.  The archive is in dialog with itself because the more material admins generate, the more material becomes part of the archive.  It is a never ending and always open loop.

   One of my former students presents a good example of how an archonic text might function and the power of fan communities to turn the potential into the actual. Derecho writes, "An archontic text allows, or even invites, writers to enter it, select specific items they find useful, make new artifacts using those found objects . . ." (65). My student joined a fanfic community on fanfiction.net that centered around another author's fanfiction. The job of the community was to take specific items from the existing fanfiction and make new artifacts, or new fanfictions, based on these items. This practice was at least at a second remove from the reality of the media. However, an argument sprung up in the community about which fanfictions were more "true" to the canon of the story.  The canon of the story in this case was a fanfiction reinterpreted from the original media. Thus the original fanfic, became the "actual" work referenced. The arguments eventually got so derisive that actual feelings were hurt and my student eventually swore off online communities. 

     On page 65 I appreciate Derecho's use of soft archive. The soft archive isn't just the framing or the paratext, but a archive of story elements and associations that can go into a fan community's tool box. This is interesting.  I have never thought of an archive in these terms.
From page 65 on, it seems that Derecho is defining textual relations from intertextuality by calling on terms of "intention" to separate the two. Fan work is more relational than intertextual because it indicates a very specific positioning as "fan work". There are all sorts of funny disclaimers author's make about how they don't "really" own the work and they can't make profit off of it. This positioning is about the intention of the writer to cross the bounds of hermetically sealed industry media and add their own sense of wish fulfillment to the media's universe or soft archive. 

Fanfics tie themselves overtly to preexisting texts; this annunciation is a
convention of the fan fiction genre, performed either in the identifying
headers that precede and categorize individual fics, or by the location of
each fanfic in fandom-specific zines or Web sites. (66). 

It seems that part of a fanfic author's intention on how to situate his writing is also in what communities he decides to join, what tags he decides to use, and how he decides on headers/titles. This is an archive within an archive. Choosing an archive category, heading, tag, etc. is a way for some authors to purposely announce that they are in dialog with the archive.

Narrative is SPECTACULAR!!

The position of narrativity in relation to “Cinema of Attractions” put forth by Charles Musser in “Rethinking Early Cinema: Cinema of Attractions and Narrativity” was very useful. For a while, I've been thinking about the deliminators between narrative vs. spectacle: particularly, how they shape the development of whatever medium is considered “newest”. The debate encountered here enacts a type of barometer that measures how principles of time and story from the early days of cinema have been reiterated in contemporary entertainment. Apart from the main constructs of the argument, some ways of categorizing narrative vs. spectacle also interested me. In relation to duration, the spectacle is positioned as single collapsible moment; whereas, narrativity is a chain of moments. In relation to taste, spectacle is portrayed as populist, whereas narrative is positioned as more “refined” and “middle-class”. 
In the end, the “Cinema of Attractions” seems like it could be used as a descriptor; however, aspects of the debate appear decidedly subjective. Musser references this with the examples of Eberhard Schneider and Lyman Howe on pg. 402. It depends, somewhat, if the formal features of “presenting views to an audience” has a structure perceived by your culture as narrative (In this case Aristotelian). (Though I would tend to agree with many of his statements) even Musser's points seem occasionally over-reaching or based on conjecture. One of the eureka moments of this article was when Musser admitted that “narrative sequencing became an 'attraction'” when narrative was a novelty (401). What is narrative and what is spectacle is obviously not always clear cut. This like so many things comes down to the tricky filter of novelty. Though this attraction may not fit cleanly as a feature of “Cinema of Attractions”, it still reveals the ultimate trump of novelty. Such debates are particular difficult to revisit because of how novelty taints the definition of what is and is not a spectacle in these historical contexts. It is hard for us to retroactively experience the “attraction” because, by the time we review it, it is no longer novel. Additionally, I would take issue with Gunning's point about “emphasizing shock or surprise at the expense of unfolding a story or creating a diegetic universe” (390). This “Cinema of Attractions” is not necessarily non-narrative. The staging of executions could be a type of prohibitory tale told to society. This is a type of powerful fiction and no less useful than scenes of the torture of martyrs played before the church in medieval times. On a separate note, why were fiction films cheaper to make than non-fiction films?

On a note from Rethinking Media Change : people who go around raving about “the death of the book” confuse me. It's like they think it's going to get sucked up to Oz in a Tornado or something. It's not likely to go anywhere anytime soon and has been in the making (and is still in the making) for a long, long time. It remains throughout all its incarnations and iterations. I'm guessing they're referring to the mythologized, tactile pleasures of the codex and the old “bathtub” argument. Or, perhaps it is a reactionary stance against a feeling of increasing intrusion by tech that can be difficult to understand. It is really the fear of the medium specific platform of “the book” dying that drives them. Having been raised with an English Teacher mother and present around English Depts. my whole life, I'm often faced with these arguments. The book won't die, It's really not so bleak for the state of the codex either, I think:) People like to immediately generalize Robert Coover's famous infamous essay, but I don't think he really believes that the paper artifact is going anywhere anytime soon either. He just takes delight in stirring the waters and getting people to reconsider forms.

Lit Review: Begin Research Question

How do you do a review of Literature for a emerging and divergent field that is as mercurial as it is contested?  A field that is too broad to pin down besides being a loose set of cultural practices around reading and writing that have something to do with computational media?  

The immensity of this question was initially paralyzing.  After surveying various approaches to writing a Literature Review for the field occasionally called "Electronic Literature".  Within the larger cultural contexts, the field felt too diaphanous to gain any simple purchase.  

In the interest of time, I began to narrow my options.   Originally, I was going to trace how a taxonomy of the field had developed.  Or trace divergent theories of reading practices.  Both these are interesting and very worthy scholarly topics that could make a good Literature Review.  However, I realized what I was really interested in.  Writing.  My current writing efforts wanted an anchor.  So, I would write about theories and practice centered on writing/in/for/through media. This will be a bit interesting, since it seems that not much exists of this sort of published material.  As the "field" exists currently, there is more theory than actual work to theorize:)  Therefore, I've begun to tap various practitioners/theorists for recommendations of published works that address writing process, product, and theory.  The work can either be their own or a recommendation.

3.3 “Modeling Functionality: From Codex to e-Book”

Presentation of 3.3. Johanna Drucker: SpecLab  Summary/Restructure/Synthesis of Main Arguments with my own supporting take. *

Opening Critique
Current conceptualizations of the e-Book are misguided.  Good case study of how a “too-literal” understanding of what constitutes the material form of one media (print book) is misconceived when that media is converted to another media environment (135).


Replication Pitfalls
Q: What formal and paratextual conventions are associated with the print codex?

In e-Book development there is too much emphasis on replicating print interface/paratext conventions, rather than engaging with how these features impact the reading process and the book’s function (136).

“Electronic presentations often mimic the kitschiest elements of book iconography, while potentially useful features of electronic functionality are excluded” (136).
Not based on strength and potential, but you get the kitschy page turn!

Examples of Extended/Augmented Content
1.
Publishing Company that makes e-Books for Penguin other artists on our panel for SXSW.  Sacredness of text and platform development they were confined to adding “jazz” to some sections of On the Road as their improved book.  Panelist did not take kindly to platform specific development approach, because operating from a company top-down corporate model.
2.
THE FREAKING VOOK demo: content embedded in a page
not a new idea: worst book trailers
3. The current State of E-books From Alice to Jason Lewis to Us & Amaranth + other dude:


Prescriptives

“The icon of the “book” that casts its long shadow over the production of new electronic instruments is a grotesquely distorted and reductive idea of the codex as a material object” (138).

Q: Which aspects of the book have relevance for/use in the digital environment?

set 1:
rapid refresh time
time-stamped updates,
collaborative and aggregated work.
“outstanding characteristic is its mutability” (137)

set 2:
juxtaposition of disparate material for study/analysis (document aggregation)
community discussion/expression of shared conditions of textual production (intersubjective exchange)
data processing (144)

These aspects help alter the materiality of an encoded information that comprises a text.  In other words, they make the text mutable.  The capacity to alter materiality is where the interesting opportunities lie. (137).

“DESIGNERS MIGHT DO WELL TO CONSIDER EXTENDING THE WAYS A BOOK WORKS” (136, emphasis added).

Q: What are the “metaphors” of book structure?

preserving some metaphors make no sense (page turn animation/clippy) “like preserving a coachman’s seat on a motor vehicle” (137).
Though markers as a metaphor to keep oriented in an array of data is ok

We can understand how to proceed in designing for the new media iteration of the book by understanding the historical contexts and inspirations that lead to its codified/popular representation (138).

“Instead of reading the book as a formal structure, then, we should understand it in terms of what is known in the architecture profession as a “program”, that is, as constituted by the activities that arise from a response to the formal structures
Further
“we should look to scholarly and artistic practices for insight into ways the programmatic function of the traditional codex has been realized” (138).
- Heinz von Foerster: ask how a book does its particular actions rather than what a book is.


Prescriptives Summary
pg. 140 Drucker’s three approaches:
1. analyze how a book works rather than what it is.
2. describe the program that arises from a book’s formal structures
3. discard the idea of iconic metaphors of book identity for understanding how forms serve as “constrained parameters for performance.”

Traditional codex has some notions that are useful for virtual books, but these are not as “literal metaphors, rather as sites of “performative space for the production of reading” (140).


The Codex as Alpha/Omega
Traditional Codex is already “virtual”
1. literary theories that readers are required to “activate” a text.  
“produced anew by the activity of each reading” (140).
2. Contains Hypertextual Elements

Q: What are some paratextual/hypertextual elements in print codex?

Paratext and Hypertextual elements famously may contribute toward a text that has “various routes of access” (143).  But because you can posit a link to virtual theory, doesn’t mean that they transfer the same function when recreated in the electronic space.  This is partially because they are being instantiated in a different materiality.  Instead we should use our knowledge of the codex to think of the“function that every graphical feature can serve, as well as the informational reference it contains as part of its production or reception history” (143).

It seems that much of Drucker's argument may be in support of her concept of graphesis
“The development of graphical features that abstract the book’s contents thus reflect a radical change in attitudes toward knowledge” (141).
or structure is “produced through graphical performance” (142).
or “The information space of a book appears as the structure of its layout” (142).
“graphical elements are not arbitrary or decorative, but serve as functional cognitive guides” (143).

The Book of Kells


Other Interesting Points
MARKET
- expanded content “On the Road”
In marketing driving need to market as a type of print book that is safe and recognizable.  Connect to the historical priority of print books and “invoke a link with their established cultural identity” (135).

Irony that marketing carries claims of “improving on the book”.  However, keeping the same design models and trying to force a material interface onto an inappropriate form is not only a poor product choice but also implicitly suggests the print book is “flawed” in some way.  When in reality they should be too different models evaluated for individual strengths and weaknesses.

Mediation as Invisibility
if we think of the book as a medium than it may have already gotten to the place lots of contemporary “new” media aspire to go (and may eventually go)
Our familiar history with book conventions “causes them to become invisible, and obscures their origin within activity” (142).

Finally, Backlash

"Cinema as Skin and Touch"

Cinema as Touch

Reading: "Cinema as Skin and Touch"Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagener.
Lately, I've been giving a lot of thought to the relation between our bodies and contemporary reading practices. I'm referring to both how our physical bodies are conditioned by digital reading platforms and how our haptic sense and inform/contribute to the reading process. In Film Theory, Elsaesser and Hagener's chapter in "Cinema as Skin and Touch" was relevant to both the general questions above and the specific mechanics of my current project: Penumbra.  Particularly relevant to hybrid, touch-screen cinema is Elsaesser and Hagener's positioning of skin as a prominent (and increasing) method of reading cinema.  Skin is an apparatus that "understands cinema also as a haptic experience." The argument she outlines has interesting implications.  Though, I would argue that skin's property of "continuous perception"  isn't necessarily activated at all moments of engaging with cinema.  I would be curious to see further evidence in support of this point.  Although, it seemed like a poetic throw-away, I feel like it is key to maintaining the power of her argument.  Further, it seems to activate at specific triggers.  Instead, specific triggers for activating one's haptic awareness seems more in-line with the examples she gives.  I recognize that her argument is constructing a shift from the primacy of ocullarcentrism to a mode that re-enables the body in the viewing process; however, she doesn't acknowledge that the body is often triggered by visual response.  In other words, viewing is often the gateway to our embodied reactions to cinema.  It is needed for skin to activate. Vision and embodiment work in concert for a total experience of cinema. On pgs.118-119 I'm interested in Sobchack's notion of "a position of sympathy vis-a-vis the other".  This is particularly relevant to me as an artist.  In Penumbra, we are hoping that  readers will resonate with the protagonist through a type of sympathetic reading of the external and internal world of the character.  The reader is situated in the protagonist's mind, reading the world through them by employing haptic touch-screen gestures.   Ideally, knowledge of one's embodiment would function as a condition of empathy with the Other. 

iPAD: Scene 1 Draft 2

The voice over  in the internal world, mostly refers to what’s above it.

actor gestures mostly tie to dialog below them

EXT. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OIL FIELDS - EARLY EVENING

JAMES POV: Rusted industrial debris is dispersed throughout the desert brush.  At uneven intervals, oil pumps nod in the background.  The arrangement is haphazard and in slight disrepair, but still conveys a sense of utility.  A  wash runs through the compound.  The juxtaposition of water, rust and sand contributes to the otherworldly feel of the setting. The mise en scene is enhanced by industrial decay: a mixture of absence and presence, abandoned but clearly in use. James prepares to speak into a communicator as his focus shifts to an industrial complex on the horizon.  

JAMES

Blast perimeter secured.

ANNOUNCER

15 second warning, 15 second warning

James lowers the communicator and faces left towards LUKE and two male demolition workers in their late 20s to late 30s. All wear standard issue safety gear.  LUKE stands closest to James and turns to acknowledge him with a conspiratorial smile.  Behind Luke, the remaining workers hurry to set-up a flip camera.

ANNOUNCER

10 second warning, 10 second warning

All present begin the countdown from 10.  James’ focus is on a close-up of Luke’s profile as he counts down.  The two workers struggle with the camera in the background.  When the group reaches 7, James turns towards the industrial complex.  At the announcer’s call of “FIRE” the landscape becomes unnaturally still and all sound is muffled until it becomes silence. The announcer’s command is the only sound that reaches through the stillness.

ANNOUNCER

FIRE

[1] OUTSIDE WORLD EYES OPEN
[2] INSIDE WORLD EYES CLOSED

[1] The world falls into slow motion/delay effect as the industrial complex implodes on the horizon.  It is silent in the whole aftermath of the explosion sequence except for James’ voice overs reflecting on his memories in the internal world.   Most of the action in this sequence takes place in the internal world.  Since James’ attention is riveted on what’s happening in his mind, the action in the external world is in extreme slow motion and slightly out of focus as if his eyes are wandering or gazing vacantly. Dust plumes rise and settle slowly.  In the immediate aftermath, everyone claps and cheers.  Luke, in selective focus, removes his communicator from his pocket and speaks into it as the remaining workers review their recording footage in the background. He turns to face James and expectantly relays a set of instructions.  The end of this part of 1 should correspond to the jump of Luke’s hand on James’s shoulder in the next [1][
more Details to be established on location]

[2]  Break from POV. Medium shot of James in his early 20s.  The edges of his upper body are slightly eroded amidst the murky darkness of a distant memory.  Dream-like light illuminates James’ “chocolate chip” patterned fatigues.  In extreme slow motion, James looks up at the camera and starts to slightly fall back.  At first there is only James within the blackness, then, gradually, the edges of Spade poker cards creep into the frame from the camera’s peripherals.  The cards move out from the camera and towards James’ face in extreme slow motion.  The whole scene occurs in roughly 15 seconds with james moving approximately 6 inches.  

JAMES V.O. [1]&[2]

In that moment, if I try to picture it, I imagine myself as if through glass - a mirror. This may be how it happened: a sudden flash of light and heat.  Brightness through the window then glass shards.  Force of an explosion behind edged cards.  This is how it happened, but this is not how.

[2] Cut to quick, close-up, and slow motion animation of James’s eye during the process of debri entering his eye and causing corneal abrasion.  Shot may be repeated with different debri entering his eye to emphasize imperfect memory and unreliable narrator.

JAMES V.O. [1]&[2]

In that moment, if I try to picture it, I imagine myself as if through a lens: lens and cornea.  An eye is not glass, fragile, but not glass.  It is fragile like tissue.  It tears.

[2] Cut to medium shot of Jesse.  The structure, lighting, background and atmosphere mirror the earlier medium shot of James.  Jesse wears her fatigues and M17 mask.

JAMES V.O. [1]&[2]

But something else is always ripping in: a memory tears, clouded by debris and full of water.

[2] A montage of quick shots that take place off-duty, elusive memories of Jesse in civilian clothing. She wears the same white dress as in Scene 3 and Scene 4. A few shots also contain Jesse and Luke as a couple.  

JAMES V.O [1]&[2]

In my mind, she is younger and softer.  Maybe these moments are remembered; maybe they never were.

[2] Cut to medium shot of Jesse.  This shot is exactly the same as the medium shot of her in the fatigues and mask, except she is wearing the white dress instead of the fatigues.

JAMES V.O [1]&[2]

Either way, they become something. Something I won’t hold.  Something I can’t.  

[2] Same medium shot of Jesse in white dress and mask.  An arm enters the frame from the left and hesitates while moving towards her mask.  The arm quickly removes a portion of her mask, briefly flashing a portion of Jesse’s face as a bone soldier.

JAMES V.O [1]&[2]

Something I deserve.

[2] In Bone Soldier Land, POV of James struggling forward through debris and smoke.  Light filters into a clearing that emerges in front of BJames.  Suddenly, progress forward is halted and James’s perspective lowers, as if sitting.

JAMES V.O [1]&[2]

Guilt is comfortable: a warm flickering heat.

But, always he makes me exit .  He . . .

[2} Just as BJames’s perspective lowers towards the fire, the Bone Soldier representing Luke arrives.  BJLuke appears in the clearing and uses his right arm and shoulder to push debris away.  BLuke distinctly, and deliberately, motions towards himself, towards the exit.  BLuke begins to move toward BJames.  BJames rises and moves forward clunkily.  His perspective is jumpy and drops frames as he follows BLuke “toward the light”.
Against the light, BLuke faces BJames and extends his arm toward BJames as if to rest it on his shoulder.

JAMES V.O [1]&[2]

. . . always brings me out.   Even now.  Though, there are things I’ve done, to him.  Keeping silent is a type of lie.  It expands until there is an unintended distance: an empty desert of self-made loss. Suddenly, you realize your time left.  You know that  quietly, the opportunity leaves.  Guilt settles, like the weight of a hand, on your shoulder: the weight of a hand that wakes you and says “it’s time”.

Need some way to get the reader back to the external world so they can see the parralel between bone soldier Luke and Luke.  Not sure how you want to do this or time it with the dialogue. ???

[1] When James next opens his eyes, Luke stands in front of him exactly parallel to how BLuke leaves James in the internal world.  Luke’s right hand is outstretched to fall heavily on James’s left shoulder.  Luke gently, but pointedly, stares at James before taking a breath and retreating to lean against a rail.  Although Luke’s stance on the rail is casual and relaxed, his expression is sharp and concerned.  He briefly looks away from James and into the distance before his eyes flick to the scroll now visible in his left hand before looking back at James.  In his anxiety, Luke defaults to his habit of gesturing with the right half of his body; During his first line, he absently waves the scroll in his right hand

LUKE

So . . . guess this means you’ve takin’ a look at it?

JAMES

James: yeah . . .  kind of figured you’d want to meet like this, in person. Besides it's good to see you.

Luke tosses James the Scroll.  James casually catches it and slides it from it’s protective case.  Unable to find a flat surface, James crouches before Luke to position it on the ground.  As James’ hand smooths the scroll flat, a diagram of a bridge emerges.  Rolled within the diagram are smooth white petals from the funeral flowers in Scene 3.  They go unacknowledged and scatter between the two men as James’ unfurling the diagram frees them to the wind.  

JAMES

Well, it’s certainly delicate.  I mean, when it’s over water like this, you’re looking at lots of environment regulations, permits, and all that red tape crap.

LUKE

Yeah, we’ve got that taken care of, not too late for us to do the rest, you know?  Just tell me what you got in mind.  

James releases a focusing breath to gear up a shift in the conversation.  His exposition is punctuated by him pointing to relevant structures in with the diagram.

JAMES

Easy,two sections really, substructure and super.  Overall . . . you’re looking at a controlled explosion with an easy 55 pounds of RDX explosives and 270 shaped charges.  First, the lifted span, or the leaf, collapses in on itself, implodes, neatly into piles that fall into the water according to regulations.

LUKE

That easy huh?   Sounds pretty delicate. . .you know I. . .

JAMES

need someone who’s trained.  I’ll place the charges myself. You’ll be impressed at how easily the structure melts, BAM, like butter.  

LUKE

What I’m tryin’ to say is: butter could get messy. Look, you're the best.  Hand’s down.  Nothin’s gonna change that.  but, well, we aren’t gettin’ any younger.  Don’t you think one of your team can handle the dirty stuff?

In the beat of heated silence, sand trickles from the top of Luke’s shirt to settle on the map.
James looks up sharply from the map

JAMES

What, you gonna crap out on me too?  You know I’m good for it.

Luke briefly closes his eyes to collect himself while he pretends to focus on folding the diagram.  It is clear that he is not paying any attention by the way he refolds it.

LUKE

Listen . . . I mean, look, are you sure you’re up for this?

JAMES

Do you think I’m not up for it?  Hey, you gave me this job. You didn’t seem to care about my condition then.  Nothing’s changed. Still not gonna let you down.

Luke, finished with the diagram,  stands as if to leave.

JAMES

Nothing’s changed.

Luke extends his hand out to James to draw him up

LUKE

I know.

There is a beat of weighty silence as sand pours from Luke’s left sleeve.

Luke (CONT’D)

(resigned)

I know, that’s why . . . look, I think you know what I’m tryin’ to say, so I’ll just tell it to you straight.  I was hopin’ to avoid this.  But, with this injury sneaking up on you again, it’s, it’s a liability.  Not just for your safety, but . . . also, for us.  As in, legally.  

JAMES

Are you?

Both men begin to leave the site and head towards the wash’s pathway.

LUKE

I’ve been wanting to tell you this in person, but after this project, it’s best you retire.

JAMES

What, how’s it best?

James turns from Luke towards a rail overlooking the wash.  He brings his palm down hard and clutches at the bar.  The sound reverberates as James remains still.

LUKE

I know it’s not your fault.  

JAMES

Do you? ‘Cause you seem to know best.

LUKE

Yeah, I do.  You wanna be professional?  My advice: get over it.  whatever it is, get over it. It’s not just about now, but its been like this, like always.

James turns to face Luke.  His voice is calculated.

JAMES

Yeah, you know, it has.  Small freakin’ wonder “I’m not over it”.  I mean I’m on borrowed time here.  But since you're the professional, maybe you can tell what’s my fault and what’s not.

You wanna go there . . .

LUKE

Look you’re upset. but I’m not going to convince you . . .

JAMES

It’s Jesse.

A pause after the build-up.  The sound of sand pouring.  Luke immediately closes up and his voice becomes tinged with distance.  He quickly recovers, falling back on his parental role.

LUKE

That was a long time ago.  Don’t try to change the subject.

JAMES

(subdued)

You know there is no other subject.  There never was.

LUKE

(resigned, tired)

Why did I ask you here?  I’ve been watching you.  But, it’s too much. See, you’re jobs have been needing greater firepower.  Someone’s gotta be calculating odds.  But lately, I don’t think it’s been you.  You’ve got the look of a man trying to find an exit and I’m getting damn tired of leading you out.

James steps back harshly and abruptly.  There is a beat of silence as Luke’s facial expression flickers to a look of shock and guilt.  The silence lingers a beat longer.

LUKE (CONT’D)

Look, I . . . that was a bit harsh.  It’s just, yeah, I’m worried and, yeah, it’s stressing me out.  

JAMES

It’s fine, I probably deserved that.  No, I know I did.

James’ voice bristles with cold and attention as he turns from Luke and begins to walk alone, ahead up the path.

JAMES

Now you know.  That’s the last thing.  It’s done.  Back then you got my back.  Well, I’ve got yours now.  Like, I said, I’ll see this out to the end.

Media Specificity as Prompt? and Us = the System's Playdough

I am a strong believer that neither media history nor the evolution of media works in isolation.  Therefore, it is hard for me to get fully behind what I have come to recognize in Media Specificity as an approach.  It is an approach; however, I am not sure whether it is meant to be more useful as an avenue for cultural critique or as a prompt for art making.  Logically, theoretically, I understand that relying on Media Specificity to define salient traits of media, hence culture,  is completely impractical (for all the reasons Noel Carroll lays out in Theorizing the Moving Image).  However, I can’t help but feel that aspects of Medium Specificity’s Internal component
can be useful as a “prompt” for the creation of new work.  According to Carroll, “the internal component examines the relation between the medium and the artform embodied in it” (8).
Perhaps, this opinion intersects with platform studies, but I think that evocative work can be made from considering what one is driven to make with what platform could best showcase it.  This is a way to leverage platform attributes (technically, culturally, socially) to add to the resonance of a work.  Even further, perhaps an assumption of what a specific medium can do best (or what a medium represents) acts as a prompt or catalyst for a nuanced piece of art.  Even if that art ends up expanding the original narrow assumption, is it not a valid way to get started?  This form of prompt would deal more with the potentials that a medium offers for art making, rather than the inverse prompt which deals with constraints.  Work by constraint is also a perfectly legitimate way of working.  Carroll refers to these constraints as “limits”.  As a writer, work by constraint seems like a natural way to work and is often used as a generative writing exercise in many contemporary workshops.  I do take issue with how Carroll seems to think working with a sense (even if it is an assumption) of a medium’s attributes is easy.  He seems to think that art created with a medium specific approach is the easy way out.  I think his opinions on this at the top of pg. 10 speak of someone who is not necessarily a practitioner.  A great deal of thought and planning can go into thinking how art resonates with the medium and materiality it professes to be created within.   If you are truly creating art, there is no “easy way out”.  I was almost offended by his flippant comments on the subject, when I get the feeling that he has not tried to produce from both sides of the argument.  I was amused and surprised at this reaction.

I do think Carroll makes some essential points that we should be aware of.  Nothing operates in vacuum and the boundaries of many media are so wide-open that most attempts at describing them are overgeneralized and therefore useless.  I think this text will be a touch-stone text for me and seminal in my efforts to interject in my concern over how my field is being prematurely labeled.  The concern over labeling echoes some of the points and discussions in Uricchio’s “Television’s Next Generation: Technology/Interface Culture/Flow”.  I had a variety of responses to this however, I was most struck by “Double Agent”.  Double Agent is a type of filtered content based on metadata that learns from user selections and suggests what they would like.  I know that this happens all the time online, however an aspect of this article made this specifically creepy as hell and not just for the obvious reasons.  I have problems with how libraries are choosing to archive literature and the interesting labels given to works so they can be sorted, suggested and searched.  While I recognize the pragmatic use for this... it is still potentially problematic.  First, there is the case of how and what labels we develop on a whim now forever altering what we consider writing in the future.  Labels/Metadata have a power of growing and molding a field, or growing and molding our culture.  Double Agent has a similar power.  Based on the metadata that we encode the machine lumps together specific content.  In some way, large or small, this content becomes equalized.  Then after an umpire reads our viewing preferences, we are told what we probably want.  There is no way that this does not have the potential of shaping us.  The illusion is a more democratic viewing, but in reality we are “suggested” by the system.  It is even more insidious because we think that the system is adapting to us, but in reality, we are partly adapting to the system because it supposedly gets better at telling us what we like each time.  Creeeeeepy.  Part of this problem is interesting for me because it shares aspects with some of my thoughts on the archival and curation of works of writing in digital media.  This article also offers lots of parallels between TV’s nebulous state as a delivery mode that offers a little bit of everything and how I see writing evolving in the future.