//Patchwork Girl//: Challenging the Foundations of Reading
Written by: Katie May
The genre of hypertext as exemplified by Shelley Jackson’s //[[Patchwork Girl]]// challenges the institutionalized methodology of reading as restrictive and exclusive. //Patchwork Girl// utilizes [[hypertext]] to destabilize the binary between author and reader, challenge the concept of linear reading, and require a degree of active involvement fundamentally lacking in [[print ]].
When I began reading //Patchwork Girl//, I was struck by how [[unconventional]] the form of the text was, as this work was my first introduction to not only [[hypertext]], but [[digital]] literature as a whole.
Hypertext can be understood as a medium “users can freely [[move]] through…by activating hyperlinks through mouse clicks, gesture, or touch” (Ensslin 258). In print, the only bodily movements made by the reader are with the eyes and the flipping of one page to another, but this is not the case with hypertext in which the reader has to be more [[physical ]] engaged.
In the medium of hypertext, the physical act of reading //Patchwork Girl// demands a recognition of how we read a text, not simply the words in front of us. I did not have to adhere to a rigid structure of reading in hypertext as I would in [[print literature]], as I was able to jump around in any order I wished. Theodor Nelson defined hypertext as “text that branches and allows choices to the reader” (Ensslin 258).
Readers have been trained throughout their education that there is both a “correct” and “incorrect” way to read literature. This “correct” reading style stresses the physical act of reading a text as left to right, top to bottom, front cover to back cover in works of English literature. This is how canonized works of print are to taught to be read. However, //Patchwork Girl// challenges this physical act of reading completely due to its hypertextual nature.
''I hardly know what code is if I’m being honest. It’s just a bunch of 001011101 right? My teacher in high school was way in to coding...''
This incorporation of the body into the text is mirrored in the content of the text itself, which discusses representations of the body. //Patchwork Girl// demonstrates a level of physicality not only in the words on the screen but in the process of accessing those words, serving as a commentary on how the reader’s body is affected by the act of reading. Jackson’s work demands a level of both cognitive and [[physical engagement]] that is lacking in standard reading practices.
Furthermore, the language used to describe the form of hypertext itself is evocative of [[movement]], as “works of e-lit are generally interconnected in ways that are not easily amenable to print publication, and they branch, or importantly perform on request” (Rettberg 170). The description of a text as “performative” demonstrates the movements occurring on multiple levels in the text. //Patchwork Girl// is read on a computer or laptop, and when one lexia or another is selected, the computer must access the specific [[code]] for that text.
In this way the actual work itself is constantly in a state of motion, just as the reader must continuously move in order to read the text.
This is the nice way of saying I was experiencing [[frustration]] :)
There was no clear order in which to read the [[lexias]], a concept completely foreign to me, as I have been trained that there is in fact an implicit [[structure]] a work of literature is meant to take. [[Scott Rettberg]] quotes Katherine Hayles in his work “Electronic Literature” recounting Hayles’s claim that “readers ‘come to digital work with expectations formed by print’” (Rettberg 171). This proved to be true, as I had [[assumed]] that //Patchwork Girl// could be read like I read any work in [[print ]] .
''Spoiler Alert: I was wrong''
However, I could not read this text in the way it has been engrained in me to read by the [[education system]], and my illiteracy in regards to Jackson’s work revealed how complacent I’d become with a strict method of reading that disallowed for any deviation. In the act of picking and choosing various lexias that did not necessarily follow one another in any logical progression, either physically on the screen or linearly in relation to a sense of plot, I was forced as the reader to physically engage with the text in a way that was quite foreign.
The physical act of clicking on lexias not only deviated from the [[traditional way]] of reading literature, but it also challenged the authority of the [[author]] as well. In canonized English texts, we are led to believe that the author maintains exclusive control over their work, and as readers we are meant to consider what the literal words on the page are trying to convey.
This affordance of choice allowed me as the reader to become a sort of secondary author creating my very own version of the work. Jackson created the content of //Patchwork Girl// and I was unable to manipulate this aspect of the piece, just as I could not change the words stamped onto a page of [[print ]] literature. However her utilization of the hypertextual medium allowed me to read this content in an order of my own [[choosing]]. My interaction with the text as a reader was not passive but rather active; I created a [[version]] of //Patchwork Girl// that may have differed from Jackson’s original, yet was still wholly valid.
The nature of Patchwork Girl as a hypertext allowed me as “the reader of an interactive text [to] participate[s] in the construction of the text” (Ensslin 259). Works of digital literature such as //Patchwork Girl// depend on a collaboration between reader and author that greatly contradicts the institutionalized conception of the original author as the sole authority over his or her work.
When first opening the text, the reader is greeted with an illustration of a women, evocative of the front cover of a print [[novel]]. At first glance then, //Patchwork Girl// does not appear to greatly deviate from traditional print text.However, there is no page for us to flip as we would when reading a book, and as the reader we must discover on our own that the act of clicking is what causes the screen to change
We are then met with a screen reminiscent of a standard title page, where the title of the work appears at the top of the screen followed by the author’s name and the subsequent chapters. As readers we have been taught that because these different [[“chapters”]] are presented to us visually in a presumed order, the top link must be the first thing we are meant to [[read]].
However, the nature of hypertext renders this way of thinking entirely obsolete. Jackson has created a work which can be read in any order at the reader’s discretion, and therefore there is no established start of the text, no “[[first]] page.” Where I choose to begin reading is likely to differ from many other [[students]] in the class, yet each reading of the text, though different, is equally significant.
''I bet a majority of us still clicked on “a graveyard” first because it was at the top of the list''
This throws into question the kinds of [[value judgements]] we as readers have been taught to make regarding the work we consume. If someone were to state that they read a book starting from the last page and reading to the first, it is likely that their reading of the text would be considered inferior to the “proper” reading of front to back. Works of hypertext like //[[Patchwork Girl]]// demonstrate that all readings and interpretations are equally [[valid]], with no one reading inherently superior to another.
''I’ve actually done this with a book! My roommate and I will pick a random chapter to read, completely out of order. I still don’t know what the plot is, and I don’t care. Hypertext in my daily life!''
In print text, we have been taught that there is one way to read, that chapter one is where we are meant to begin and occupies the first pages whereas the last chapter occurs at the physical last page of the book. Hypertext does not follow this format whatsoever. There is no established beginning or end of //Patchwork Girl//, thus allowing the reader to [[create]] their own story with the text provided.
The [[lexias]] crucial to the form of hypertext each contain within them “a number of links,” and it is up to the reader which link is followed in which order. In this way, every time a reader engages with a hypertextual work, an entirely new text is constructed. In this way hypertext not only challenges the institutionalized practice of reading that has been engrained in our society that discourages experimentation with the text presented to us but also begins to deconstruct the binary of [[author]] and reader.
In hypertext the author is no longer championed as the ultimate authority over their work but encourages, and in fact requires, the reader to manipulate the text. //Patchwork Girl// quite simply cannot be read as a traditional piece of literature because it does not conform to standardized reading practices due to the freedom afforded to the reader.
The [[language]] we use to discuss hypertext as well is demonstrative of how deeply engrained the standardized style of reading truly is. This class enlightened me not only to new ways of reading, but also terminology associated with digital literature. For example I became aware as to what a lexia is, allowing me to properly discuss//Patchwork Girl//. Until taking this class specializing in digital literature, I was never taught what [[hypertext]] was, as these subjects are largely ignored by the American education system which instead lavishes attention on print literature.
Therefore, in regards to what I refer to as the “title page” of //Patchwork Girl//, there appears to be a “table of contents” listing the work’s “chapters.” This terminology is not an accurate representation of the text, yet our education has left us without the ability to discuss digital works.
Due to the complicated and unfamiliar landscape of Storyspace in which //Patchwork Girl// was constructed, I found it impossible to read the work in its entirety. At first, I found this to be extremely fustrating, as I felt that I was ~~missing~~ a great deal of content. However, this [[frustration]] revealed yet another institutionalized reading practice ~~I had~~ subconsciously adhered to; I assumed that the [[entirety]] of the text would be easily ~~accessible~~.
We are taught not to skip words when we read, and God forbid we skip a chapter in a book, yet hypertext does not operate this way. //Patchwork Girl// is meant to be engaged with, a text in which the consumer of the work is both reader and [[author]] at once, and as the author it is up to us how much or how little of the original content we include in our own unique reading.
It is crucial to understand that the canon taught in our schools is faulted due to its exclusiveness and [[adherence to tradition]]. There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching young learners a standard way of reading, the issue lies in the resulting assumption that this is the [[only way to read]].
[[Matthew K. Gold]] in his work “Digital Humanities” poses the question “does DH challenge traditional academic practices or merely transpose them into new forms?” (Gold 144). I would argue that works of digital humanities like //Patchwork Girl// do both. Jackson’s piece does “challenge traditional academic practices” in that it forces the reader to engage with the text in a way they are not used to as it is not how they were [[taught]] to read.
Gold, Matthew K.. “Digital Humanities.” //The John Hopkins Guide to Digital Media//. Marie-Laure Ryan, Lori Emerson, & Benjamin J. Robertson. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2014. 143-149. Print.
I enjoyed reading this piece because it dealt specifically with the way works of digital literature were implemented in a scholarly environment. My entire argument was based around the way that digital literature is read in regards to the way we've been taught to read, so this combination of the digital with education was very helpful. This concept of digital literature of part of the “humanities” is something I’d like to look further into; I think that works like //Patchwork Girl// are definitely literature and therefore should be studied as part of the humanities. Although there might be different ways of reading digital texts and print texts, they’re all still literature. Just because digital literature challenges the way we’ve been taught to read does not mean we should ignore the field, but instead embrace it!
Rettberg, Scott. “Electronic Literature.” //The John Hopkins Guide to Digital Media//. Marie-Laure Ryan, Lori Emerson, & Benjamin J. Robertson. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2014. 169-174. Print.
This source was extremely helpful in supporting my comparisons to what I refer to as "institutionalized" ways of reading. This section on E-lit discussed the connection to print literature, most notably the way the two are similar. By reading this text I was able to find support for my argument that when reading works of digital or electronic literature, we bring with us the assumptions we've picked up from print. I didn't want to argue that these assumptions were necessarily bad, I wanted to stress the importance of recognizing that these assumptions do exist and have been taught to us as readers through our education. I found it a bit ironic that a print textbook I'm using as a part of my education was what helped me to explain this.
The discomfort (and of course frustration!) our class felt when attempting to read this text was so prevalent because //Patchwork Girl// was a literal challenging of traditional methods of reading. This [[frustration]] illuminated the fact that we’ve all be trained to read in one specific, narrow way and that our education has not provided us with the skills necessary to read works of digital literature.
''SHOUTOUT TO MY TABLE! #FRUSTRATION NATION''
However different hypertextual pieces may appear, they are still works of literature. Digital literature expands on and challenges traditional literary practices; //Patchwork Girl// does not reject print literature but instead transforms it into something new. Shelley Jackson was highly influenced by Mary Shelley’s //Frankenstein//, a staple of the British Romantic canon. Jackson was able to take a work of canonized print literature and manipulate it into an entirely new form in a digital space. The [[history of print]] is not ignored but in fact utilized as a basis for this work of digital literature that is then transformed into something new.
In regards to the relationship between works of digital literature and traditional print literature, the concept of hypertext is not actually revolutionary at all. Hypertext stresses “[[multilinear reading]], interrelating, annotating, and cross-referencing” concepts that are all present in historical pieces of literature ([[Ensslin]] 259). For example, I recently read a section of Lawrence Sterne’s 1759 novel //[[Tristram Shandy]]//, a text very prophetic in regards to hypertext.
Ensslin, Astrid. “Hypertextuality.” //The John Hopkins Guide to Digital Media//. Marie-Laure Ryan, Lori Emerson, & Benjamin J. Robertson. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2014. 258-265. Print.
This text was definitely the most helpful in constructing my final project. I had a pretty decent grasp on what hypertextuality was, but it was useful having a very clear definition. Not only that, but Ensslin expanded on the history of hypertext, detailing not only its incorporation into digital literature but recognizing the fact that hypertext is not new. I was really interested by the fact that ancient texts demonstrated very hypertextual traits, and it made me think about a lot of the print works I have read, wondering if they are actually hypertexts. I discussed //Tristram Shandy//, a text I hadn’t even considered to resemble digital literature in any way, and it shares the common feature of hypertextuality! This section was wonderful in that it really did so much more than giving simply a basic definition of what hypertext was.
''Shoutout to Professor Ewell for teaching this!''
The story is essentially one digression after another as the fictitious Tristram Shandy attempts to record every detail of his life. These digressions transport the reader from one time in the narrator’s history to another before jumping back or at times winding up somewhere in between, resulting in an extremely “multilinear reading.” Each [[digression]] can be considered a kind of lexia as they tell a different part of the story yet are in some way all connected to the text as a whole; these digressions are “interrelating” as well as “cross-referencing.”
Like //Patchwork Girl//, I found //Tristram Shandy// very difficult to read in that there was no linear plot to follow as I have come to expect from the literature I read. Sterne’s work therefore demonstrates a [[challenging]] of a [[standardized]] way of reading long before the invention of hypertext (or any other work of digital literature, for that matter).
''Why did this not establish a recognition of multiple forms of readership? It was not only [[unconventional]] , but incredibly popular! Yet I’m still expected to read it the same way I’ve been taught to read everything else...''
Works of hypertextual literature such as [[Shelley Jackson’s]] //Patchwork Girl// demand a style of reading that has largely been ignored by the American education system. Hypertext requires a reader’s ability to physically and cognitively engage with the text differently than in print literature. The nature of hypertext itself in the form of lexias allows the reader a freedom to manipulate the text in a way that not only destabilizes the binary between author and reader but elevates the reader to the status of author themselves, undermining the [[institutionalized]] conception of the author as the definitive authority in a given text.
In this time of emerging digital literature, “the future of the academy and the fate of scholarship” (Gold 144) is being challenged, and rightly so.
Jackson, Shelley. “Patchwork Girl; or, A Modern Monster.” Eastgate Systems. Cambridge, MA 1995. Digital File[[. ]]
I chose this text for my final project because it was not only my introduction to the course, but it was the piece that really got me thinking about ''how'' we read, a concept I've been interested in for the rest of the semester. When I first read this text I had no idea how to interact with digital literature, and was completely lost! It took me forever to get any sort of sense of how to navigate Storyspace, and for a while I didn’t want to bother trying because I was so uncomfortable with digital literature. It took a little while, but I came around, and realized that this [[frustration]] was in fact significant and I could learn from it. Additionally, for a long time I was focused on the concept of authorship and what it means to be an author as opposed to a reader. I enjoyed how //Patchwork Girl// complicated this relationship by not only encouraging the reader to take on the role of author, but actually demanded it in order to read the text at all. The level of engagement the text required was not something I was accustomed to in all of the print literature I've read.
''Is this even how I’m supposed to cite this? I’m not sure, no one ever taught me...''