Megan's Blog
Just another WordPress.com weblogAll Hail the Hypertext?
Self Reflection: When I first began brainstorming for this assignment, my mind immediately went to my fourth essay, “All Hail the Hypertext.” The subject of whether or not a hypertext can be considered legitimate literature or not is such an interesting topic and I believe that in the future it will become a more wide spread controversy. I felt as if my original essay was good but given more time could be better. To strengthen my previous argument, I began searching for information on the author of the hypertext, “My Body,” Shelley Jackson. If we can find out why an author chooses to publish a hypertext over a book, we could then distinguish the differences between literature and hypertext.
Author of “Patchwork Girl” and “My Body- a Wunderkammer,” Shelley Jackson has had plenty of experience with hypertext. After reading through several interviews in which she discusses her work and the medium in which she publishes it became even more clear to me that there in a huge difference between hypertext and literature. Shelley herself recognizes that there is a vastly different process in writing a novel and writing a hypertext. The two processes create products that seemingly are nothing alike. The use of Jackson’s viewpoint helps to strengthen my argument and give readers an inside view as to why hypertexts cannot be considered a legitimate form of literature. Going back to the first essay we wrote in this class, I have also decided to incorporate my own views of reading into this final project. Discussing my own experiences with reading helps readers understand why it is so difficult for me to understand and accept hypertexts. I think in lines and in straight paths which is probably part of the reason that hypertexts are confusing to me.
Over the course of the semester I have been able to check several items off of my writing to do list, including being more creative in writing, having better opening paragraphs and improving organization. In the future I would like to work on improving my conclusion paragraphs, as I have tried to do in this essay.
All Hail the Hypertext
In the recent years text has jumped from the printed page over to the screen. Whether it is a novel, an encyclopedia or a magazine, the content can all be accessed by way of screen. There are dozens of websites which entertain online content such as this as well as an even more recent form of online text, the hypertext. What is hypertext you may ask… and to be honest I had to ask the same thing. To define this mysterious word, hypertext (noun): a method of storing data through a computer program that allows a user to create and link fields of information at will and to retrieve the data nonsequentially. So basically, it’s the storage of data within a network. Author of several hypertexts, Shelley Jackson, views hypertext as more of an online novel or an enhanced form of literature as opposed to plain data. She has published several hypertexts including, “My body – a Wunderkammer,” and “Patchwork Girl.” Both publications are filled with directional links, sounds, graphics and utter confusion and focus on the human body and gender. How can literature be taken seriously if its environment draws readers away from the work and leaves them wandering through an array of links? Jackson admits that, “I’ve never written anything in a straight line from beginning to end, but always in the round, or in snatches that I later stitched together into a pattern” (the Hypertext Author). Spoken by the author herself, hypertexts do not travel in a linear direction; they send readers side to side and in circles. Due to their confusion, distraction and misdirection I believe that hypertexts such as “My body – a Wunderkammer” should not be considered literature. Critic, Sven Birkerts would have much to say in opposition to Jackson’s hypertexts. To borrow from him, literature is “linear,” with a direct path. How can a hypertext be literature if it only sends readers in a circle?
Jackson’s, “My Body” begins with what looks like a table of contents but then sends readers into a dizzying array of words and pictures. I began by clicking on the link for hands, from hands I went to nose, then to hair, then back to hands. There was no clear order; I was more focused on trying to make sense of its organization than on the actual text itself. The links navigate followers through the body in no exact order. Two sentences through learning about her hands was the link for her nose. In cases like this the reader chooses to either keep reading about hands or go on to the next mysterious body part. The confusing set up seems to be symbolic of Shelley Jackson’s view point towards the human body. Jackson states that, “Hypertext doesn’t know where it’s going. It’s got no through-line. Like the body, it has no point to make, only clusters of intensities, and one cluster is as central as another, which is to say, not at all” (The Patchwork Girl). Here, she relates the pieces of the body to the pieces of a hypertext; each piece stands alone, independent of the other. While some people may enjoy this chaos that she has intertwined into “My Body,” I like organization. I want to read with no distraction, why should I have to choose where to go next? It is the author’s job to lead, not the readers.
As I began to closely look at Shelley Jackson’s online text the beginning was clear, there was a large click stating “BEGIN,” almost begging me to click it, but after that first click I had no idea where in the story I was. For the purpose of this online text, we’ll call each different screen a page. Within each one of these pages were several links that would take me somewhere else, but where I was going I could not be sure. As I said before, I was going from hand to nose to hair, and then back to hands again, just one big circle that I couldn’t escape. There was no definite middle, nor a definite end. Everything about the text was so ambiguous that it drew my attention away from the words and focused it on everything but. Jackson stands by her stylistic approach to writing, believing that, “Hypertext makes it easy to place things side by side, rather than one after another…guess you could say I want my fiction to be more like a world full of things that you can wander around in, rather than a record or memory of those wanderings” (the Hypertext Author). Here, we have Jackson claiming that hypertexts are like an open world and an open world is much better than a narrow path. A book is a solid, yet narrow path, you know when you’ve reached the middle and you must use your memory to piece together each event within your mind. Hypertexts do not allow for that, as Jackson says, you simply wander through the text. Online text is like a ghost, how can we know that it exists if we can’t see its form?
It’s becoming clear that hypertext and novels are certainly two different mediums and one is not even a legitimate form of literature. Jackson claims that hypertext allows the author to write a better story, “I think in things: complicated ideas come to me in flesh, concrete metaphors with color, heft, stink. So it is easier and more pleasing for me to think of text as a thing or things, arranged in a place, than as a story told by a storyteller…”(the Hypertext Author). Instead of placing events one after another, the hypertext gives the author the ability to add more than simple, linear paths. Hypertext authors do not have to focus on placing events in sequential order or making sure each even connects to another. It seems as if an author of a novel would have difficulty writing a hypertext, the drastically different set up makes it seem like an even less form of legitimate, linear, literature and more like fragmented pieces. Jackson herself admits that, “A mass conversion to hypertext fiction would mean a mass relinquishing of treasured habits, and that’s not going to happen all at once” (the Hypertext Author). In response to that, I’d like to ask if that transition will ever happen at all. You can’t expect people to give up tradition. Hypertext will always be evolving while books will remain a constant and stable tradition in the world of literature. The two different forms of text will have to coexist in order to survive in today’s society.
As much as I have disagreed with the opinions of critic Sven Birkerts in the past, in this case I believe that we have very similar ideas. He also believes that “Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words which appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved- have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page” (154). Words on a screen and words on a page are completely different. While many might argue that words are words and will have the same meaning no matter where they are located, I beg to differ. Words get lost on a screen, in the case of Jackson’s, “My body,” it’s impossible to intentionally go back to the “page” before; in fact it’s almost impossible to intentionally do anything. Words on a page can be touched while words on a screen simply lie there, moving from screen to screen. The surprise factor of the links on each page leave readers lost and confused within the story, a story that gets so lost that it might as well just be data. While it may seem like the reader has complete control of the text because he chooses where to go, maybe it can be argued that they have less control. If the reader can only move forward, do the words before even exist anymore?
But wait, am I being too skeptical? Author, Katherine Hayles claims that, “The MINDBODY is engaged, not merely mind or body alone…material metaphors, for they control, direct, and amplify this traffic force between the physical actions the work calls for and structures and the imaginative world” (48). Hence, she feels that readers are more connected to the story when they are given the chance to interact with it on the screen. Instead of simply reading the story, they are choosing it and they are playing with it. Readers can better place themselves in the story when not only their mind but their body is involved. I realize that many people will agree with the views of Katherine Hayles, believing that hypertext’s allow readers to become so intensely involved in text that they get lost within it. That’s the whole point of reading a novel anyways right, to just get lost in it? A reader can easily become so absorbed in the navigational links located within “My Body” that they forget about the rest of the world. But, on the contrary the reader isn’t actually lost in the text; he’s lost in the environment. He’s lost in the links and the circles, in the data and in the ambiguity. How can this be considered real literature if all does is lose readers to its own environment? Some may argue that “My Body” was not created to be literature, it was merely a project meant to be shared via the World Wide Web. After all, the text does include legitimate words and stories compiled into many parts. I recognize that this assumption is highly possible but we aren’t looking at Jackson’s intent right now or her story telling capabilities, we are more focused on the experience of reading the hypertext. Many of us can agree on the fact that multiple links and nonlinear paths distract us from the words and do not enhance our reading experience.
My personal experience with reading is very traditional. I have read books ever since I can remember. This long connection I have with the printed novel makes it difficult for me to except anything but books as a form of literature. I remember being 5 years old reading Dr. Seuss books with my parents; I could feel the pages between my fingertips and touch the letters on the page while sounding out each consonant. Thinking back to this moment, if this had been an online hypertext my experience as a reader would have been completely different. Pages would have been traded for screens and page turns would have been sacrificed for clicks. As Birkerts argues, there is a loss of intimacy that comes along with reading from a screen. Because I grew up holding books and turning pages, I feel that loss of intimacy with every click I take through a hypertext. It’s hard for people to give up tradition and accept change. While I recognize that hypertexts exist and now, always will, I will not recognize that they are literature.
Hypertexts may just be defined as the storage of data but they offer much more than that. While they offer stories and descriptions they also offer distraction and confusion. The environment in which Shelley Jackson’s text, “My body – a Wunderkammer” is in draws readers away from the text and focuses their attention on the links and the style. Readers become lost when little or no direction is given by the author. Within a hypertext, reading instantly becomes more difficult than simply turning a page, readers must choose which links to follow and hope that they can make some sense of the information. Judging by the viewpoint of hypertext author, Shelley Jackson, hypertexts are completely separate from the traditional novel and may never be accepted in the same way that books are. The difference is in the fragmentation. Books provide a whole, linear story while hypertext provides side by side, parts of a text. Literature is not data on a screen and links that take you in circles. It is a linear surface; a middle, a beginning and an end, it is solid and it is clear.
I pledge that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while writing this essay.
Literature Cited:
Birkerts, Sven, The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age, New York: Faber and Faber, 1994
Hayles, Katherine, Writing Machines, Massachusetts: MIT press, 2002
Jackson, Shelley, Stitch Bitch: the Hypertext Author Cyborg-Femme Narrator, Amerika Online, http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/3/3193/1.html
Jackson, Shelley, Stitch Bitch: The Patchwork Girl, MIT communications forum, http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jackson.html
All Hail the Hypertext?
All Hail the Hypertext?
In the recent years text has jumped from the printed page over to the screen. Whether it is a novel, an encyclopedia or a magazine, the content can all be accessed by way of screen. There are dozens of websites which entertain online content such as this as well as an even more recent form of online text, the hypertext. What is hypertext you may ask… and to be honest I had to ask the same thing. To define this mysterious word, hypertext (noun): a method of storing data through a computer program that allows a user to create and link fields of information at will and to retrieve the data nonsequentially. So basically, it’s the storage of data within a network. Author of several hypertexts, Shelley Jackson, views hypertext as more of an online novel or a dignified form of literature as opposed to plain data. In her project, “My body – a Wunderkammer,” Jackson describes her body, the story behind her scars (not just the physical ones,) and her deep emotions towards the human formation. The online story is filled with directional links, sound, graphics and utter confusion. How can literature be taken seriously if its environment draws readers away from the word and leaves them wandering through an array of links? Critic Katherine Hayles claims that hypertexts involve the reader at a higher level but I beg to differ. Due to their confusion, distraction and misdirection I believe that hypertexts such as “My body – a Wunderkammer” should not be considered literature nor should they be studied within the school environment. To borrow from Sven Birkerts, literature is “linear” with a direct path. How can a hypertext be literature if it only sends readers in a circle?
“My Body” begins with what looks like a table of contents but then sends readers into a dizzying array of words and pictures. I began by clicking on the link for hands, from hands I went to nose, then to hair, then back to hands. There was no clear order; I was more focused on trying to make sense of its organization than on the actual text itself. The links to go on to the next body part were located in random places within the text. Two sentences through learning about her hands was the link for nose. In cases like this the reader chooses to either keep reading about hands or go on to the next mysterious body part. The confusing set up seems to be symbolic of Shelley Jackson’s view point towards the human body. Jackson states that, “Hypertext doesn’t know where it’s going. It’s got no through-line. Like the body, it has no point to make, only clusters of intensities, and one cluster is as central as another, which is to say, not at all.” Here, she relates the pieces of the body to the pieces of a hypertext; each piece stands alone, independent of the other. While some people may enjoy this chaos that she has intertwined into “My Body,” I like organization. I want to read with no distraction, why should I have to choose where to go next? It is the author’s job to lead, not the readers.
As I began to closely look at Shelley Jackson’s online text the beginning was clear, there was a large click stating “BEGIN,” almost begging me to click it, but after that first click I had no idea where in the story I was. For the purpose of this online text, we’ll call each different screen a page. Within each one of these pages were several links would take me somewhere else, but where I was going I could not be sure. As I said before, I was going from hand to nose to hair, and then back to hands again, just one big circle that I couldn’t escape. There was no definite middle, nor a definite end. Everything about the text was so ambiguous that it drew my attention away from the words and focused it on everything but. A book is solid, you know when you’re nearing the end and excitement forms in the pit of your stomach. Online literature is like a ghost, how can we know it exists if we can’t see its form? Katherine Hayles claims that, “The MINDBODY is engaged, not merely mind or body alone…material metaphors, for they control, direct, and amplify this traffic force between the physical actions the work calls for and structures and the imaginative world” (48). Hence, she feels that readers are more connected to the story when they are given the chance to interact with it on the screen. Instead of simply reading the story, they are choosing it and they are playing with it. Readers can better place themselves in the story when not only their mind but their body is involved. I completely disagree with Hayles point of view. I believe that we are less involved in the story when we must deal with the agitation of links and graphics and noise.
As much as I have disagreed with the opinions of Sven Birkerts in the past, in this case I believe that we have very similar ideas. He also believes that “Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words with appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved- have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page” (154). Words on a screen and words on a page are completely different. While many might argue that words are words and will have the same meaning no matter where they are located, I beg to differ. Words get lost on a screen, in the case of Jackson’s, “My body,” it’s impossible to intentionally go back to the “page” before; in fact it’s almost impossible to intentionally do anything. The surprise factor of the links on each page leave readers lost and confused within the story, a story that gets so lost that it might as well just be data. While it may seem like the reader has complete control of the text because he chooses where to go, maybe it can be argued that they have less control. If the reader can only move forward, do the words before even exist anymore?
But wait, am I being too skeptical? I realize that many people will agree with the views of Katherine Hayles, believing that hypertext’s allow readers to become so intensely involved in text that they get lost within it. That’s the whole point of reading a novel anyways right, to just get lost in it? A reader can easily become so absorbed in the navigational links located within “My Body” that they forget about the rest of the world. But, on the contrary the reader isn’t actually lost in the text; he’s lost in the environment. He’s lost in the links and the circles, in the data and in the ambiguity. How can this be considered real literature if all does is lose its readers to its own environment? Some may argue that “My Body” was not created to be literature, it was merely a project meant to be shared via the World Wide Web. After all, the text does include legitimate words and stories compiled into many parts. I recognize that this assumption is highly possible but we aren’t looking at Jackson’s intent right now or her story telling capabilities, we are more focused on the experience of reading the hypertext. Many of us can agree on the fact that multiple links and nonlinear paths distract us from the words and do not enhance our reading experience.
To take it a step further, let alone refer to this hypertext as literature, why would someone want to teach this in a school? Some believe that children will be more interested in reading if it’s seems fun and engaging. In response to that I wonder why children should need to be bribed to read using technology and the fun that comes with it. And if hypertext can be considered fun does that mean it is all just a game? If I had been introduced to reading hypertext as a child I probably would have decided that reading is distracting and confusing, less relaxing and more like work. Children should be exposed to bound books first, real literature in which they don’t have to worry about choosing their path of links.
Hypertext may just be defined as the storage of data but they offer much more than that. While they offer stories and descriptions they also offer distraction and confusion. The environment in which Jackson Shelley’s text, “My body – a Wunderkammer” is in draws readers away from the text and focuses their attention on the links and the style. Readers become lost when little or no direction is given by the author. Within a hypertext, reading instantly becomes more difficult than simply turning a page, readers must choose which links to follow and hope that they can make some sense of the information. Literature is not data on a screen and links that take you in circles. It is a linear surface; a middle, a beginning and an end, it is solid and it is clear.
I pledge to have followed the Washington College Honor Code while writing this paper.
Within this essay I believe that I did a good job of setting up my argument. Although my opening paragraph is long, I think it thoroughly introduces readers to my thesis. One thing I could have improved upon, and would like to improve upon in the future is having a variety of sentence structures within the text.
Literature Cited:
Birkerts, Sven, The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age, New York: Faber and Faber, 1994
Hayles, Katherine, Writing Machines, Massachusetts: MIT press, 2002
Jackson, Shelley, Stitch Bitch: The Patchwork Girl, MIT communications forum, http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jackson.html
Lost in reading
After browsing through several different hypertexts, websites, and online novels I have settled upon taking a closer look at Shelley Jackson’s, “My Body – a Wunderkammer.” “My Body” is an example of a hypertext. Jackson takes readers on a personal journey, describing her body and her feelings towards it. The online story is filled with directional links, sound, graphics and utter confusion. Each link takes readers to a new “body part” or sometimes takes them back to one they had already read about. There is no middle and there is no definite end. How can literature be taken seriously if its environment draws readers away from the word and leaves them wandering through an array of links?
Due to their confusion, distraction and misdirection I believe that hypertexts such as “My body – a Wunderkammer” should not be considered literature nor should they be studied within the school environment.
Katherine Hayles claims that,
“The MINDBODY is engaged, not merely mind or body alone…material metaphors, for they control, direct, and amplify this traffic force between the physical actions the work calls for and structures and the imaginative world.” (pg 48)
Hence, she feels that readers are more connected to the story when they are given the chance to interact with it on the screen. Instead of simply reading the story, they are choosing it and playing with it. Readers can better place themselves in the story when not only their mind but their body is involved. I completely disagree with Hayles point of view. I believe that we are less involved in the story when we must deal with the agitation of links and graphics and noise.
I realize that many people will agree with the views of Katherine Hayles, believing that hypertext’s are so great because the reader is involved in the navigation that they get lost within the text. That’s the whole point of reading a novel anyways right, to just get lost in it? But wait, on the contrary the reader isn’t actually lost in the text; he’s lost in the environment. He’s lost in the links and the circles, in the data and in the ambiguity. How can this be considered real literature if all it is doing is losing its readers to its own environment? Let alone refer to it as literature, why would someone want to teach this in a school? Maybe they believe that children will be more interested in reading if it’s seems fun and engaging. In response to that, I wonder why children should need to be bribed to read using technology and the fun that comes with it. This only furthers the assumption that hypertexts are not literature, they are a game. If I had been introduced to reading hypertext as a child I probably would have decided that reading is distracting and confusing, less relaxing and more like work. Children should be exposed to bound books first, real literature in which they don’t have to worry about choosing their path of links.
As much as I have disagreed with the opinions of Sven Birkerts in the past, in this case I believe that we have very similar ideas. He also believes that “Words read from a screen or written onto a screen- words with appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved- have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page.” (pg 154) Words on a screen and words on a page are completely different. While many might argue that words are words and will have the same meaning no matter where they are located, I beg to differ. Words get lost on a screen, in the case of Jackson’s “My body,” it’s impossible to intentionally go back to the “page” before, in fact it’s almost impossible to intentionally do anything. The surprise factor of the links on each page leave readers lost and confused within the story, a story that gets so lost that it might as well just be data. While it may seem like the reader has complete control of the text because he chooses where to go, maybe it can be argued that they have less control. If the reader can only move forward, do the words before even exist anymore?
Caution: You are now entering a new world.
Upon first browsing through the E-literature I felt a strong sense of confusion. What is the purpose of all the extra graphics and the surprising links? Are they there for nothing more than creating Chaos? Once the tornado in my mind settled, I decided to take a closer look at Shelley Jackson’s “My Body a Wunderkammer.” I was first presented with a graphic, a short passage about the “novel,” if it can even be called that, and a “Begin” button. Clearly, this was the beginning of the story. A story in which Jackson describes her body, the story behind her scars (not just the physical ones,) and her deep emotions towards the human formation.
The beginning was clear, but after that I had no idea where in the story I was. There were several links on each page that would take me somewhere else, but where I was going I could not be sure. Where was the middle, what was the end? Was there even a definite end? Everything about the literature was so ambiguous that it drew my attention away from the words and focused it on everything but. A book is solid, you know when you’re nearing the end and excitement forms in the pit of your stomach. Online literature is like a ghost, how can we know it exists if we can’t see it’s form? Katherine Hayles claims that,
“The MINDBODY is engaged, not merely mind or body alone…material metaphors, for they control, direct, and amplify this traffic force between the physical actions the work calls for and structures and the imaginative world.” (pg 48)
Hence, she feels that readers are more connected to the story when they are given the chance to interact with it on the screen. Instead of simply reading the story, they are choosing it and playing with it. Readers can better place them selves in the story when not only their mind but their body is involved. I completely disagree with Hayles point of view. I believe that we are less involved in the story when we must deal with the agitation of links and graphics and noise. Like Jackson’s text, many of the E-texts have sound which I found very distracting and almost scary at some points. I expect to read a novel and not be scared half way through a page with various noises attacking me.
“My Body,” by Jackson begins with what looks like a table of contents but then sends readers into a dizzying array of words and pictures. I began by clicking on hands, from hands I went to nose, then to hair, then back to hands. There was no clear order, I was more focused on trying to make sense of the organization than on the actual text itself. The links to go on to the next body part were located in random places within the text. Two sentences through learning about her hands was the link for nose. In cases like this the reader chooses to either keep reading about hands or go on to the next mysterious body part. The confusing set up seems to be symbolic of her view point towards the human body. While some people may enjoy this chaos, I like organization. I want to read with no distraction, why should I have to chose where to go next. It is the authors job to lead, not the readers.
As much as I have disagreed with the opinions of Sven Birkerts in the past, in this case I believe that we have very similar ideas. He also believes that
“Words read from a screen or written onto a scree- words with appear and disappear, even if they can be retrieved- have a different status and affect us differently from words held immobile on the accessible space of a page.” (pg 154)
Words on a screen and words on a page are completely different. While many might argue that words are words and will have the same meaning no matter where they are located, I beg to differ. Words get lost on a screen, in the case of Jackson’s “My body,” it’s impossible to go back to the “page” before. While it may seem like the reader has complete control of the text, maybe it can be argued that they have less control. If the reader can only move forward, do the words before even exist anymore?
I would further like to explore how the use of graphics within hypertext change the overall reading experience.
“A Series of Unfortunate Events” makes for a great read
After reading the novels, “A series of Unfortunate Events” I immediately assumed that the Author, Lemony Snicket, also known as Daniel Handler must be an imaginative and eccentric man. After hearing him speak today, I’ve learned that he’s also funny, creative, intelligent and a very well respected author who wasn’t also so sure of himself. His approach on writing novels can teach us all something our own style of writing, and more importantly about life itself.
Growing up, Mr. Handler was unlike most children – he enjoyed reading books in which terrible events occurred but were never resolved. As an adult, this led him to write his famous series of unfortunate events, emphasizing the fact that endings aren’t always happy and that evil is not always defeated. Hearing the author speak about real life vs. fairy tales can teach us that in our writing we should be raw and truthful. Events should not be sugar coated because when this happens a point is reached in which the reader can no longer relate to the story simply because life is not sugar coated, it is raw.
A moment that really stood out for me while listening to him speak was when he said that, “When enough terrible things happen, it becomes funny.” This made me begin to think about my writing, and the writing of most college students in general. We’ve been taught to write in a proper manor, where everything is essentially already laid out for us, Handler thinks outside the box. His novel is funny because it is ironic; it’s not funny because he followed a special outline for a comedy or inserted a joke on every page. Sometimes writing is more about the absence of something than having every single detail spelled out for the reader.
Another Real Life Boy
When the world of film is analyzed one can begin to see that every film fits into a category. Within each category the films are strikingly similar; the same basic plot lines are followed and similar climaxes occur. The same pattern can be observed within the digital recreation of novels. Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein cleared the pathway for dozens of films, ranging from the late 1800’s to the current day. Although it may seem unrelated, the story of Pinocchio, released 65 years after the first copy of Frankenstein, has many parallels with Shelley’s novel. Both story lines share a similar plot and revolve around the theme of recreation as birth. Enhanced by digital effects, key scenes in Disney’s Pinocchio, released in 1940, are direct interpretations of Mary Shelley’s novel while other scenes show variant differences.
Nearly everyone has seen the famous scene in which the monster is created, and Victor proclaims, “Its Alive!” This is originally portrayed in the novel as excitement and wonder, made clear by Shelley’s vivid words and exclamations within the text. The same excitement and wonder is found in Pinocchio when Gepetto creates Pinocchio. This creation scene within the film depicts Gepetto carefully picking out features for his “boy,” hand painting his face and carefully constructing the wood used for his body, just as Victor carefully selected for the monsters features within Frankenstein. This key scene develops further when Pinocchio springs to life, just as the monster does. After wishing upon a star for his wooden creation to be a real boy, Gepetto awakes to find his creation alive. Upon first glance he stares at the newly born creature with wide and surprised eyes, and then suddenly denies him, saying “No, no, no, no,” and mumbling that he must wake up, as if he is experiencing a bad dream. In Shelley’s novel we see the exact same actions occurring when Victor discovers his creation alive. He says, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe!” (Shelley, 55). Here we see both creators having the same reaction towards their creations, their creations that they wished so hard for.
Within this scene the camera zooms in quickly on Gepetto’s face, as his eyes, wide, stare at Pinocchio and his mouth drops. The camera then slowly moves back out as Gepetto regains his composure. Happiness overcomes his face and he realizes that his wish came true, and now, he is a father. The camera zoom adds emphasis on Gepetto’s feelings, drawing viewers away from those of the other characters. The background music is quickly paced with an unsteady beat; this alerts the viewers and spreads a feeling of uneasiness. The feeling of uneasiness is further portrayed through the use of lighting. It is still dark outside within the animation therefore Gepetto must walk through the house by candle light. The faint glow of light creates shadows and allows viewers to see only what the character is seeing. Here we see another similarity to Frankenstein, Victor creates his monster at night in the dim light also. These film techniques could obviously not have been used by Shelley in her writing; instead she used vivid verbs and strong emotions. Camera movement, lighting and music were Disney’s way of conveying Shelley’s writing. Watching this scene in “Pinocchio” allows readers to go back to Frankenstein and use its plot line to foreshadow the film. Viewers can predict that there will be negative consequences to Gepetto’s selfishness.
The similarities between these two scenes prove that “Pinocchio” must be a digital recreation of the Frankenstein story. Disney is well known for taking important historical events and significant literature and translating them into children’s films. Until I closely watched the movie I did not see the parallels with Frankenstein but I now recognize that Disney must have got some of their inspiration from the famous novel. As the film continues, some differences between it and Frankenstein develop. After Gepetto gets past the shock of his creation becoming alive, he embraces him and calls him his own son. A bond forms between the two, creation and creator, just has a bond would form between a father and a son. Gepetto sends Pinocchio to school, treating him as a real boy. This is very different than the violent relationship formed between Victor and the monster. Pinocchio tries his hardest to make his father happy and proud, but he his tricked into joining a marionette circus. Gepetto then spends his time looking for his lost son until he is swallowed by a whale. We again see the use of dark lighting within the film to symbolize an unfortunate event which could have been prevented. This scene is similar to Victor searching for his monster as he too runs into trouble when he gets stuck on the frozen lake. The fast paced film speed during the scene in which Pinocchio is told that is father is living inside a whale shows the urgency Pinocchio feels to find his father. This proves that creation is certainly a form of reproduction because family bonds can be formed between the creation and creator.
When watching Gepetto carefully sculpt his wooden boy, viewers see him hold the delicate body parts and paint a smile upon the boys face. Disney emphasizes this creation scene through the use of lighting, music and camera movement within the film. Just as Frankenstein, Pinocchio explores the theme of creation by males as reproduction but larger implications within the film go further in suggesting that family bonds can develop between the creator and creation.
I pledge to have followed the Washington College Honor Code while writing this paper.
I believe that I did a good job when writing the opening paragraph. I made sure to go from general to specific to ease readers into the essay. I also think I did a good job describing the relevant scenes. In future papers I would like to do a better job of using active voice.
Literature Cited:
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. MacMillan Press Ltd. Boston, New York, 2000.
Pinocchio. Director Hamilton Luske and Ben Sharpsteen. Disney Studies, 1940. Film.
It’s Alive
When the world of film is analyzed one can begin to see that every film fits into a category. Within each category the films are strikingly similar; the same basic plot lines are followed and similar climaxes occur. The same pattern can be observed within the digital recreation of novels. Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein cleared the pathway for dozens of films ranging from the late 1800’s to the current day. Although it may seem unrelated, the story of Pinocchio, released 65 years after the first copy of Frankenstein, has many parallels with Shelley’s novel. Both story lines share a similar plot and revolve around the theme of recreation as birth. Enhanced by digital effects, key scenes in Disney’s “Pinocchio” are direct interpretations of Mary Shelley’s novel.
Nearly everyone has seen the famous scene in which Frankenstein’s monster is created, and Victor proclaims, “It’s Alive!” This is originally portrayed in the novel as excitement and wonder, made clear by Shelley’s vivid words and exclamations within the text. The same excitement and wonder is found in “Pinocchio” when Gepetto creates Pinocchio. This creation scene within the film depicts Gepetto carefully picking out features for his “boy,” hand painting his face and carefully constructing the wood used for his body, just as Victor carefully selected for the monsters features within the Frankenstein. This key scene develops further when Pinocchio becomes alive just as the monster does. After wishing upon a star for his wooden creation to be a real boy, Gepetto awakes to find his creation alive. Upon first glance he stares at the newly born creature with wide and surprised eyes, and then suddenly denies him, saying “No, no, no, no!” and mumbling that he must wake up, as if he is experiencing a bad dream. In Shelley’s novel we see the exact same actions occurring when Victor discovers his creation alive, he says, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe!” (Shelley, 55). Here we see both creators having the same reaction towards their creations, their creations that they wished so hard for.
Within this scene the camera zooms in quickly on Gepetto’s face, as his eyes, wide, stare at Pinocchio and his mouth drops. The camera then slowly moves back out as Gepetto regains his composure. Happiness overcomes his face and he realizes that his wish came true, and now, he is a father. The camera zoom adds emphasis on Gepetto’s feelings, drawing viewers away from those of the other characters. The background music is quickly paced with an unsteady beats, this alerts the viewers and spreads a feeling of uneasiness. These techniques could not be used by Shelley in her writing, instead she used vivid verbs and strong emotions. Camera movement and music was Disney’s way of conveying Shelley’s writing.
The similarities between these two scenes prove that “Pinocchio” must be a digital recreation of the Frankenstein story. Disney is well known for taking important historical events and significant literature and translating them into children’s films. Until I closely watched the movie I did not see the parallels with Frankenstein but now I see that Disney must have got their inspiration from the famous novel.
There are several other scenes I’d like to examine. Pinocchio becomes mischievous soon after he is created, this reminds me of the monsters violent actions. There is also a scene in which Pinocchio is learning to use his body, this also seems similar to a part of Frankenstein. I wonder if Pinocchio, the original story, was inspired by Shelley’s Frankenstein, or if it is just a coincidence? I wonder how the other versions of “Pinocchio” portray the “birth” scene?
The Creator’s Creations
While many readers have tended to view Frankenstein simply as a juvenile horror story, an understanding of Mark Shelley’s introduction shows a more complicated story because it reveals how her own life is intertwined into the novel. Although this more complicated version of the Frankenstein story in terms of the author’s personal life may not be familiar to many readers or viewers of Frankenstein, in my view it is crucial to understanding Shelley’s novel.
There are many parallels between Shelley and the characters she has created within the novel. When Frankenstein is read closely, one can find many similarities between Frankenstein and Mary Shelley, making it appear that this is more than a horror story – it’s a horror story that is symbolic of her life. Frankenstein grows up as a privileged child, in the very first sentence he admits that, “I am by birth a Genevese, my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic” (page 27). Readers can assume from this that Frankenstein grew up having everything that he wanted, including a well rounded education. Shelley also tells us that she grew up privileged. In her introduction she gives readers some background when saying that, “…as the daughter of two persons of distinguished literary celebrity….”(277). Here we see the first similarity between her and Frankenstein. Both of them started off life in an educational environment and it can be assumed that they had more experiences than most children in the 1800’s. Their childhoods both had influences on the creations they came to form in the adult years of their lives. For Frankenstein it was the science novels he read as a child and for Shelley it was the influence of her parents. Shelley is trying to show her readers that who we are as children effect who we become.
More similarities arise on the following pages. We know from Shelley’s introduction that she learned to think outside the box from early on. She celebrated the fact that, “My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting me the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie”(282). Thus, she has always had a vast imagination, a trait that she also gives to her creation, Frankenstein. He has a mind vivid enough to create this being from the parts of the dead. A mind unbound by limits and ready to, “Pour a torrent of light into our dark world” (51). As the novel continues, Frankenstein tirelessly works to create a superficial being; Shelley on the other hand works to create a timeless horror story. Both creators have the same goal in mind; to be remembered for something great. When their creations are finished, their creators describe them as something horrible, Shelley saying, “I bid my hideous progeny to go forth…”(284) in regards to her novel, and Frankenstein saying, “I beheld the wench- the hideous monster whom I had created”(56). These similarities provide prove that Frankenstein is more than a fictional character; he is the author’s version of herself. She created this hideous novel and he created a hideous monster.
There are also some examples of Shelley’s personality embedded into the other characters of the novel. Shelley admits to being, “a close imitator” (278). This trait coincides with a trait of the monster. He learned all he knew by watching the cottagers and imitating what they did. Hence, Shelley didn’t only embed her personality into Frankenstein, but also into several other characters.
A Closer look at Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein shows how the events of her own life are intertwined into the life of the main character. In my view it is crucial to understand Shelley’s life in order to the origins of the novel.
Victor chooses his own fate
As Marry Shelley’s novel Frankenstein develops, the complexity of it grows. Several stories are embedded into one another. The monster doesn’t just tell his story to Victor, he also tells the story of the villagers. One could argue that the two stories are synonymous. The monster and the cottage family both endure hardship when they are exiled from their know territory and left to rediscover themselves. The plot continues to thicken as the monster claims more of Victor’s loved ones in seek of revenge.
Beside from the moment when the hideous monster is created, I think another turning point in this novel happens when Frankenstein promises to create a female monster but then goes back on his word. Unlike the first time he created a creature, this time he thought about the consequences of creating another monster. On page 204 Victor wonders,
“Had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations?”
He knew that if the two monsters did indeed want to be with each other, they first thing they would want would be children. This would lead to the more monsters, and one monster had already done enough damage. He was stuck in a precarious position, both of his options were risky. Ultimately he chooses not to create another potentially evil monster. This poses another problem. His creation becomes angry and kill his wife, Elizabeth. This once again proves that the mistakes of Victor lead to the deaths of others. Five people are killed inadvertently by Victor.
It’s also interesting to look at the similarities between the characters. The monster, R. Walton, and the cottage family all long for companionship. In letter 2, Walton expresses his want when saying,
“I have no friend; Margaret: When I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy.”
We also see times in the book when the monster longs for friendship. On page 185, the monster tells DeLacey,
“I am an unfortunate and deserted creature; I look around and I have no relation or friend on earth.”
The cottagers solemn looks and calm hint that they are missing something more in their life. This something is love, which comes in the form of Safie. Upon her arirval,
“Felix seemed ravished with delight when he saw her.” (144)
It seems as if the stories of these three people are woven together. Each one individually makes the other one more complete.
I wonder how differently things would have ended up if Frankenstein had completed the second monster. Would thousands of monsters one day have ruled the world? Or would they disappear and never be seen again?
Why didn’t Frankenstein and Elizabeth hide in secret on their wedding night? He knew that his creation would be coming for him, I think he could have done something to prevent the death of his new wife.
Where does the monster go at the end of the novel? Will he become less evil. If all his anger came from Frankenstein, and Frankenstein is gone shouldn’t his rage disappear?
Creator vs. Created…the ultimate struggle
Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein is a great example of a Gothic novel. The emotions of horror and rage, mixed with a dark and sullen setting create a prevailing atmosphere of mystery and horror. Dr. Frankenstein devotes his life to science, only to later turn his back on it. He creates a “monster” whom he immediately turns away from. The monster drives him to insanity, leaving him in the hands of his good friend Clerval to nurse him back to health. The novel takes several different unexpected turns. The monster, filled with wrath and anger, kills Frankenstein’s brother…an event that surely would not have happened if his creator had loved him.
Outraged by this, Frankenstein vows to seek revenge. Once he finds the monster, instead of revenge he allows the monster to tell him the stories of his travels.
On page 56, the monster is born. Dr. Frankenstein proclaims,
“…now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of what I had created, I rushed out of the room.”
The doctor had spent two years trying to give an inanimate figure the gift of life, trying to make a beautiful creation for which he would be know throughout eternity for, but he did not see a beautiful form of life, he saw a monster with the eyes of a demon. This is a major part of the book because when the creator turns his back on his “child” it leads to many unfortunate events. Mary Shelley does a good job of foreshadowing events. When the Doctor walks away from the creature and thinks,
“My heart palpitated in sickness of fear and I hurried on with irregular steps, not daring to look about me.”
This shows the uneasiness he feels about his creature running wild. This uneasy feeling transcends to the reader, telling us that something bad will happen later on.
I think that Mary Shelley is brilliant for the idea of allowing the monster to learn by watching the family in the cottage. It is very human like for him to learn through observation. Readers feel sorry for him when they see he is living alone in the woods. It also shows that he has a heart and is capable of loving. On page 121 we see his compassionate soul when he tells the Doctor that,
“I often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days.”
Although the monster killed Frankenstein’s brother, he is a kind and caring person.
I wonder what the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creation will be in the future. Will Victor forgive the monster or will he still seek revenge? I also wonder if the doctor will ever reveal to his family that he created this monster. Do the letters in the beginning foreshadow Frankenstein chasing the monster? Does this mean he does not forgive him, and why did the monster run?
