Project Explanation: outlook.
This post is going to contain spoilers for my project, so just a heads up if you haven’t got the chance to look at it yet!
My main goal with the project was to explore ideas of interactivity, textual authority and marginalia by creating my own narrative between two characters who relied on different means of writing to each other: the digital world of email and the physical / real world of letter writing. This exploration of a typed versus written narrative was supposed to encourage thinking surrounding the scribes explored in the offset of the module against the digital advancements emphasised in the final weeks of the module.
The project was also influenced by the massive fear instilled in me that as a creative writer who uses social media to construct a lot of my stories: I might lose all my work someday in the face of bitrot. I have my lecturer to thank for these anxieties and the subsequent increase of printing fares at the McClay.
Creating my story was a relatively simple process which can be noted in this post. The main challenge I faced as a writer was finding a reason for someone to write letters in reply to someone who was writing emails.
This is what brought about the shift in style as the letters were not necessarily replies to the emails but instead written responses to the screenshots of these emails: a narrative which hopefully becomes clear through the physical manipulation of the screenshots. In other words, the letters are supposed to have been written sometime after the email conversations have taken place, somewhat playing off Pale Fire’s commentary style.
Aside from this, the story follows a basic three-act structure posited by John Yorke in his book: Into The Woods in which a protagonist makes a choice between her goal (to memorialise her friend) and her need (to say goodbye to this friend). I think the pacing of the story is a little rushed near the conclusion of the letters but overall I am extremely happy with how a narrative that doesn’t really directly address module themes is able to be implemented and manipulated by our authors in small ways so that they deal with a multitude of issues.
The Physical Construction:
As for physical construction, that can be found on this post. My main issues with the actual construction, probably unsurprisingly, came from the technical side of the emails.
The name of the sender changed mid-post and caused me a four hour waiting time while I messaged microsoft for advice (they weren’t very understanding of me using their email service for a creative project, but we got it fixed and that’s what matters.) The text also annoyingly behaved itself as I attempted to get a ‘cut off’ at one point to show the impossibility of scrolling without a screen interface to interact with, however this was later resolved through the inclusion of attached and partially cut-off pictures / poems.
As for the physical construction, I began by recreating the ‘Van de Graaf’ canon from one of the lecture slides which is what dictated the size of the written pages as I wanted the first few to at least reflect this ‘perfect’ laying out of text before questioning this later to reflect our author’s emotions through the narrative. I also wanted to make a comparison between the ‘filled’ page of a digital screen against the emptiness text was given previous to this.
I then ensured I had labelled each verso and recto before stapling the pages together (with probably the world’s tiniest stapler) and ensured that the letters and emails were juxtaposing one another so that comparisons could be easily drawn. (I also stapled through my finger at one point - so this project literally has my blood, sweat and tears put into it.)
(This section of the blog graciously didn’t save when I typed it last - so here we go again. There is definitely some irony to do with bitrot and the fact my project address the reliability of digital narratives. Tumblr is clearly fighting back.)
I open the project with the login page for outlook: the email provider which Olivia sends her messages on. In some ways I wanted this page to emulate the lock of a diary: this screen is supposed to provide protection of secrecy and yet as the narrative unfolds: it clearly doesn’t. I really enjoy the concept of my reader being able to surpass this security measure with a turning of the page too as it shows off an accessibility to paper / the folio in comparison to the limitations and inaccessibility computer coding can create. The physical act of turning the page also involves my reader in the narrative as they become an invasive public viewing force on my characters: an act which ultimately brings their downfall.
I wanted to start with a direct comparison (hence the page setup) and so put an inaccessible link in Olivia’s email against a touchable object in Lauren’s letter. Olivia’s link should provide instant access through clicking through to an event: however because of the paper format, we are unable to physically click and so lose some of the narrative down this link. In comparison, Lauren provides physical proof of the event through the wristband which a reader can physically feel and interact with: something I wanted to encourage in the letters against the inaccessible digital narrative. This is a story about preservation, and from the offset it should be apparent that the letter narrative preserves a lot more of these girls’ story than the digital can.
I also wanted to open discussion on formatting: the digital is standardised and uniform, meanwhile the written letter is customised and personal with the little drawings and quick changes of colour characterising Lauren in comparison to Olivia who relies solely on her text tone to do this for her. I continue this throughout the project as text moves more and more from the lines provided into a sort of free for all which challenges standardisation (much like in House of Leaves).
The second page furthers questions of interactivity within the two formats. The digital is limited through use of attachments which once again can’t be interacted with in a physical manner: therefore losing more of the story. Furthermore, the previews cut off the images and distort their size to make them difficult to view, with two of the five attached not showing up at all. This suggests digital preservation of text / image has limitations in the physical world as the formatting of the web page means certain data remains hidden when not accessed through a web screen. Therefore there is a specialised means which must be used to access digital information.
Meanwhile the written letter offers a direct comparison where images cannot only be attached / viewed freely, but can also be manipulated and commented upon more readily as Lauren physical tears the images and customises them. In particular, I wanted to challenge the layout of the page with the image that surpasses the physical boundaries: something exclusive to the letter narrative.
There is some limitation shown here in that Lauren’s images are all similar in comparison to Olivia’s which offer a range of ideas, but this showcases the multitude of images accessible through the internet against the limited references in a magazine.
I also riffed off ideas of ‘scrapbooking’ which can be likened to Nox: with the physical manipulation of one text (a magazine) being used in another text. This creates challenges of authorship, but also helped in making the text feel as if it were constructed by Lauren (which in a way is another question of authorship as a reader questions if I am the author of this text, or if it is the girls.)
The third interaction is supposed to once again show a limitation to the digital through the use of a GIF which doesn’t move. This once again shows how digital text cannot be accessed without the correct equipment. I also wanted to foreshadow the permanence of mistakes during this part of the text and so had Olivia’s typos remain preserved in this part of the text. The voice notes are once again commentary on attachments: with a digital media offering so many means for aiding narrative but only when accessed through a digital means, as the voice note ultimately becomes useless without this and so we lose some of the story again.
The choice to staple Lauren’s letter response is to challenge how a reader interacts with a text and offer some autonomy to the reading experience. My reader can chose to peek through the text, having to physically manoeuvre it to gain more information (similar to moving text in House of Leaves). They might also skip past this section, or even tear the staple (which is encouraged if you haven’t done so in areas of the project). Through breaking the staple, I wanted to make my reader a participant in creating themes of invasion within the text: my reader becomes part of the problem which leads to the downfall. This then raises a question about authorship again as my reader becomes part of the narrative through interacting with it: an idea raised in Pry and Device 8.
The fourth interaction plays with ideas of ‘cut ups’ and marginalia discussed during week six and suggested in Nox. I wanted this to be the first hint at Lauren being in the future and commentating on Olivia’s story in the past. It was interesting to find meaning in my own words (my own real shaky first year introduction to an essay) and so a cut-up was born to show an ease of manipulation when the digital is printed versus the formatting problems which occur when Olivia tries to manipulate email standards by inserting pictures later in the narrative. I also wanted to keep with themes of inaccessibility by hiding the majority of the content behind another unclickable download. This story is very much about privacy versus exposure and I wanted this to come across in as many areas as possible.
My use of the reference list was supposed to pay tribute to the grimoire and ideas of the book being used as a tool when mages would physically source material based on lists in the book. I wanted my reader to be able to do the same and so all of the references link to texts which are relevant to the story’s content: this was another way of creating reader autonomy and further real-world interactivity within my reader.
The choice to crumple the page was simply to show a variance in how a physical text is presented / manipulated by real world interaction against the standardised email.
The fifth interaction was mainly for driving narrative but also allowed me an opportunity to make commentary on mistakes in a digital narrative. The little red lines, added by Lauren, are supposed to show what would be hidden to a reader as mistakes are covered up within the digital realm versus the clear visibility of scored out physical writing. This also plays on the permanence of mistakes, foreshadowing again.
Meanwhile the interactive physical invitation is supposed to provide a comparison to the invitation at the beginning of the story. The physical invitation is interacted with physically: compared to the simple click encouraged through the link. This was then supposed to further themes of authorship and interactivity as the narrative is clearly being constructed by an outside author (me) but also appears to be crafted as if Lauren has made the project. The change in shape also shows the easy manipulation of a physical text again and challenges standardising.
The idea of ‘blocking’ raised here once again creates questions of security: especially since the reader is an invader on this private narrative.
Meanwhile the physical letter’s destruction is supposed to firstly emulate the violent emotions felt by Lauren (also backed up by the overuse of staples) but is also supposed to challenge how a text can also lose parts of the narrative through physical decay / wear and tear. I wanted the heavy leaning to also show this violence and create real palimpsests (an idea taken from the fake indents and markings in Nox).
Interactivity is also heavily encouraged here as the reader has to align the project in different ways to fully read Lauren’s thoughts, an idea inspired by House of Leaves textual alignment. The flipping over of the text by hand here also encourages a reader to take some sort of authorship again: whilst also suggesting they add to the destruction of the physical text through their manipulation of it.
There is a lot going on in these two pages.
The use of pictures to tell a story emulates a change in storytelling brought about through the digital: with video games using a collection of environments to tell a story over the singular use of text. The fact these images are messy and non-standardised is supposed to show the difficulty in manipulating the norms of the digital. Furthermore, the tiny picture of the poem is supposed to show a disadvantage to photo preservation as certain details are lost.
This is then reprimanded by the physical reconstruction of the text in the letter form. The words of the poem are better preserved when Lauren acts as a scribe and copies them: however the aesthetic and world surrounding the poem are better preserved by Olivia’s photo. In a way, the two narratives collaborate here to create a fully realised world. Olivia (the digital) is providing general setting whereas Lauren (the textual) provides details.
I also wanted to encourage my reader’s interactivity once again by using real life reference points which a reader could then be encouraged to visit. I liked the idea of my reader being able to live both these girls experiences as it questioned authorship and autonomy.
This heavily encouraged my choice to insert a part of the real world into my narrative through the use of the pressed flowers. I wanted to emphasise the physicality of the written text: and this was best done by bringing the physical and real into the narrative. This was interesting for a number of reasons: it was a real world cut up as I took a piece of real life and inserted it into the narrative, doing the job of the attachment in a way.
Furthermore, the text was now living and breathing - questions of authorship would be all over the place as these pressed flowers are given a story of their own. Did the author simply pluck them from his back garden? Did Lauren press these flowers in memory of Olivia? Where the flowers from the day they spent together? Did these characters actually exist? Is the author using pseudonyms? The inclusion of the real world in my project forces my reader to either buy into the story or begin to question it.
It must also be noted that the downfall of my protagonists has been present the entire narrative but only becomes apparent in this interaction when Skype is hinted at. This evoked themes of invasion once more and creates a sense of foreboding due to the standardised and easily accessible links.
This was probably the most notable use of interactivity within my project. The girls are exposed via an inaccessible video which completely invades their privacy: yet to access this information a reader has to wage through a collage of sexualised female bodies, making the reader part of the problem as their hand touching these bodies becomes invasion of female sexuality. This interaction is supposed to emulate the violation thrust upon the girls.
Furthermore, the choice to use a collage is once again playing with ideas of scrapbooking and links back to ideas of authorship as it appears Lauren is using her magazine from earlier to cover up the scandal. The fact this cover up is ultimately quite easy to pass is supposed to show a downside to ease of access whilst also showing how the easy surpassing of the login screen at the story’s beginning is not necessarily a good thing. This story is supposed to have very little security and highlight why this is a bad thing.
In comparison, the letter is mainly for story advancement with the use of past tense to show reflection. However, it can be noted that there are still elements of interactivity at play with Lauren’s hidden thoughts glued down on the other side of the page. The only way a reader is getting this is through destruction of the text which raises questions about how a reader is supposed to interact with a text. Most assume you simply read a text and treat it well so it gives off a picturesque image: my project is challenging this as the beauty of the text must be destroyed if my reader wants to access the full story. (This is revenge for everyone hating my torn up copy of Dubliners).
This interaction furthers themes of destruction. Much like the girls relationship, the more invasive you want to be as a reader / viewer, the more you have to destroy. Olivia has written a cry for help which challenges standardised email formatting: however Lauren has covered this up with her own narrative (Pale Fire taken literally). The only way to access Olivia’s side of the story is to rip apart Lauren’s narrative and so reader autonomy is once again encouraged.
Tearing out the staples, or pulling at the glue which hides a message from Lauren on the back of the letter is also supposed to emulate invasion once again as my reader becomes a physical manipulator of a narrative constructed by someone else. This raises a question of authorship as obvious layers work in which I have created the project, which is actually created by Lauren which is then given a new narrative through reader interaction once again. The story becomes three peoples all at once and has allowed me to emulate ideas suggested in video games where you have ‘creator / character / player’ in a real world setting.
This final interaction is supposed to show a physical representation of a digital act. Lauren has deleted the emails, an action which cannot be physically shown so instead is done through the physical means of deletion: scribbling out. This scribbling only occurs in the middle of the screen to show that the website still very much exists even if the narrative doesn’t: especially that onlooking skype button. This creates a sense of permanence web-users like to suggest but challenges this through showing a deletion which effectively removes an entire narrative from existence.
The letter is supposed to show ideas of interactivity once again, but this time when the staple is removed a sort of faux-printing press is established with a line from the poem. This shows instead how it is Lauren’s words which are preserved as she chooses to remember the story through her narrative as opposed to the online one. She remember through the physical: through putting her own stamp and manipulating the narrative in a way she wants.
I don’t want to say too much else as we are nearing the end of the story and I think it should very much be left open for interpretation.
Ambiguity was too important for creating a dual-authorship with my reader, and so I am making a conscious decision to not explain the final page. Instead, the reader is open to creating their own conclusion to the story.
I am extremely happy with how the project turned out. I have been able to address a multitude of issues discussed over the course of the module through an unconventional means. I particularly enjoyed the ambiguity and experimentation I was allowed to explore in completing the project, and as a script writer it has been really really nice to experiment with a story outside my usual playing field.
I hope you have also enjoyed reading it, and hopefully have taken something from it yourself too. Please don’t be afraid to destroy things, explore things and above all, interact.
“A book once finished sits on the shelf, opens without electricity or upgrades to its operating system or to the environment in which it is stored. Five hundred years from now? The complexly layered and interdependent material conditions that support digital storage, access, and use have an unprecedented rate of obsolescence, and half a millennium is unlikely to extend the shelf life of files that aren’t backward compatible across two or three versions of software upgrades. As for permanent — the fact is that every use of a file degrades and changes it, that “bit rot” sets in as soon as a file is made, and that no two copies of any file are ever precisely the same as another.” – Johanna Drucker, ‘Pixel Dust: Illusions of Innovation in Scholarly Publishing’ LA Review of Books, January 2014
