Browse Books

Reviewer: Marie-Claude L'Homme

Aarseth discusses digital literature and its status in literary theory. His aim is to define a place for electronic works—hypertext, computer games, story generators, and multiuser discourses (MUDs)—within theories of literature. This book differs from previous accounts of digital literature in that it does not try to define electronic texts as textual forms radically different from all other types of “standard” literature. (The texts examined by the author throughout the book are referred to as cybertexts, by which he means texts organized in such a way as to integrate the user, or reader, into the literary process.) Instead, the author criticizes the opposition and argues that previous attempts have focused on the medium, that is, the format of the text, rather than on the content or the interaction with the user. According to the author, electronic literature is not unique; it shares similarities and differences with other literary works, and theories should accommodate this. He states I argue that existing literary theory is incomplete (but not irrelevant) when it comes to describing some of the phenomena studied here, and I try to show why and where a new theoretical approach is needed. My final aim is to produce a framework for a theory of cybertext or ergodic literature and to identify the key elements for this perspective (p. 17). Aarseth considers electronic textual forms as “ergodic” literature, a term borrowed from physics “that derives from the Greek words ergon and hodos, meaning work and path” (p. 1). He uses the term to refer to forms of literature in which the user must perform specific actions to accomplish a literary sequence. Ergodic literature includes digital texts such as computer games, hypertext novels, story generators, and MUDs. But it also includes paper-based texts such as I Ching, a Chinese book of wisdom made up of parts that can be combined in different ways to produce up to 4,096 possible texts; Apollinaires Caligrammes, poems in which the words are organized in multiple directions, without a clue as to what order to read them in; and Queneaus Cent mille millards de poemes, a book containing 10×14 lines, the combination of which can produce up to 10 14 sonnets. Aarseth shows that all these texts, though printed in different media, belong to the same paradigm. Aarseths model of ergodic literature is supported by a typological analysis of the textual forms examined. The analysis is based on seven variables: dynamics, determinability, transiency, perspective, access, linking, and user functions. (The definitions of these variables are provided and discussed in chapter 3.) The results show that the works differ, not because of the media in which they are presented (paper or digital), but according to more fundamental characteristics, such as the level of interaction with the user. The book consists of nine chapters, a 200-item bibliography, and an index of keywords and authors cited. Chapter 1, the introduction, presents the books focus and defines the main concepts and terms used. Chapter 2 discusses approaches proposed by other literary researchers (especially theoretical accounts of digital literature) and explains how Aarseths analysis differs from these previous approaches. It also discusses the fundamental characteristics of the texts studied, namely that they are nonlinear, interactive, “works in movement.” Chapter 3 presents the text typology developed by Aarseth and the method used to analyze ergodic texts. The method relies on a program designed by Daniel Appolon [1]. Chapters 4 through 7 are devoted to the aesthetics of specific forms of digital literature. Chapter 4 discusses hypertexts, chapter 5 discusses computer games, chapter 6 discusses story generators, and chapter 7 discusses MUDs. Chapter 8 redefines the role of the reader in cybertexts; the redefined role allows him or her to transform the text and become an active part of the literary process. This book is clear and readable. Although it is primarily intended for literary theorists and critics, it is accessible to nonspecialists. The approach proposed by Aarseth is appeal ing. Some critics might argue that part of the analysis relies on a typology based on variables, and the choice of variables could be criticized. Although this is true, the basic concepts developed by Aarseth and his discussion of fundamental issues remain extremely valuable.