BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

The Grant Morrison Interview Archive

  
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011

 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
01:28 / 21.03.09
yep, you are right. Anything could be made ergodic. Hell your library is ergodic.

However, the prisoner differs in that if you watch the prisoner episodes out of order it reveals new layers of the material.

Also this doesn't really hamper the quality of viewing, but it can enhance it. It isn't going to ruining the experience like watching the wire or another novel for television would.

Conversely, watching Star Trek episodes out of order hardly reveals very many new layers.

I think that the prisoner is meant to be dissected and laid out, kind of like Seven Soldiers which you can read in the trade order, in the individual consecutive series, or by glancing at two or more open issues at once.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:42 / 21.03.09
You know, w'evs. It's more important to be happy than right in this world.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
02:21 / 21.03.09
You should reread Seven Soldiers, it never fails to make me feel happy.

"Ergodic" is an interesting concept, in that it seems absolutely goes-without-saying. I actually feel sort of weird and uncomfortable, knowing someone thought up a word for it.
 
 
Neon Snake
08:20 / 21.03.09
I'm more uncomfortable that the word ergodic, when applied to storytelling, seems to have no relationship to it's mathematical counterpart.

I'm now going to feverishly caveat, thusly:

1) Assuming that my understanding of ergodic storytelling is correct, that you need to make more effort than typically needed by the storytelling format.

2) That my understanding of ergodic theory in mathematics is correct, that not only will object X pass through all possible variations of state over a long enough period of time (which is just basic probability), but also that there is an equal probability of X being in any possible state at any given time.

I'm not getting the relationship.

Can someone cleverer than I am either correct assumption 1 or 2 (or both), or show me how they are linked, please?
 
 
Spaniel
08:46 / 21.03.09
I suspect they aren't really. It seems to me that it's just another case of creative types in the arts sphere abusing mathematical/scientific concepts. That said, the term's meaning within the arts sphere might well have some utility.

BRUCE WILLIS, I'm not entirely clear what you mEan by "non trivial". I'm thinking you mean something like Snake's "non typical", that engaging with complex texts might be hard work, but it is still the same *kind* of work, if much tougher, than the kind of work we would normally expect to put into understanding, say, the Die Hard: With a Vengeance.
 
 
Neon Snake
09:01 / 21.03.09
The example I found through Google was the storytelling in Half-Life - it is apparently ergodic because the "viewer" has to be active in the story, rather than passively having information and plot-points shown to them through prescripted cutscenes.

So, a film, tv show, book, or comic cannot be ergodic (using this definition) unless it requires more than just watching it, or periodically turning a page.

Maybe an argument can be formed that Heroes is, in some senses, ergodic - there are comics that flesh out the backstory, so to get the full picture, you have to do more than just pop a DVD in and stare at the telly.

It's possible that Morrison is using this definition - he's been saying for a while that his comics require a bit of "offline" work - looking up unfamiliar terms and characters, in order to get the bigger picture.

(I don't know how this might relate to The Prisoner, I've never seen it.)

The mathematical definition (assuming my understanding is correct) is quite interesting, though.

One could argue that an ergodic tale would allow you to pick up any part of it (issue 4, say, of a 7 issue series) and it would still contain the same themes - in their entirety - as the overall work.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:07 / 21.03.09
Oh God.
 
 
Neon Snake
09:17 / 21.03.09
Haus, without any context, I can only presume that your "Oh God." means that you are on your way to, or have just achieved, orgasm. Given the lack of exclamation, I suspect "on your way to."
 
 
Neon Snake
09:24 / 21.03.09
Bobs, maybe "a different kind of effort" is better than "non-typical".

So, Twin Peaks requires, arguably, more effort than Buffy, but it's the same kind of effort.

Casting around for an example, The Matrix as a whole story requires you to watch the films, watch the animated stories - and to play the videogame, which is a different kind of effort to the Die Hard series.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:42 / 21.03.09
"Oh, God" means that this is all going to go south, because my conduct - that it's important to know at least roughly what something means - is at odds with the demands of the thread.

Look at Klarion up there. He doesn't want to know what ergodic actually means, and why indeed would he? Is he going to be hanging out with mathematicians, or with literary theorists? Unlikely. He wants to feel close to the great man. So, having not heard of the word until yesterday, he is now telling people what it means, because what he actually needs is not to understand it, but to fail to understand it in the right way. So, any book can be ergodic (pick it up, open it at random, open it at random again), any film can be ergodic (select a random chapter on the DVD, watch it, select another one, watch it), anything at all can be ergodic, and by extension The Prisoner was simply the first cultural product the interviewee ever encountered.

Thus, "oh, God". No orgasm involved. Orgasm is a fine thing, and to be celebrated.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:55 / 21.03.09
And, obviously, Papers is surprised and disappointed that such an obvious and useless idea has its own word, because he has absorbed Klarion's obvious and useless definition of the term. And, indeed, you have decided that "non-trivial" is not a good fit, not because you have a critique of Espen Aarseth's conception of the non-trivial effort, but because it doesn't accurately encapsulate what you think ergodic ought to mean.

I mean, where's the value in this, is my question? Kumquat storytelling. Orfindle storytelling. These are the storytellings I like.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:29 / 21.03.09
Right. Sorry. Deep breath. What is specifically meant by ergodic literature - a term which Aarseth openly acknowledges he filched from physics but also explains in terms of its Greek roots - is literature (which at the time of the original writing included games, or at least the species of games that involved inputting and receiving text entry) requiring a non-trivial effort. Trivial in this case is defined as:

If ergodic literature is to make sense as a concept, there must also be nonergodic literature, where the effort to traverse the text is trivial, with no extranoematic responsibilities placed on the reader except (for example) eye movement and the periodic or arbitrary turning of pages.

(First chapter is here).

Personally, I don't like the use of extranoematic here, and I disagree with Aarseth's redefinition of it, but the meaning is pretty clear - the actions which are markedly outside interaction with the text (of course, there are some books which use this - which implicate the reader by the action of turning the page, e.g.

I don't think your reading is accurate, NS, although of course it might be a misreading shared by the interviewee, because lots of books which require the effort of looking up words or references to get everything out of them still require only this basic interaction. You can get the Matrix (it is bad) without playing "Enter the Matrix" or "The Path of Neo" or "The Matrix Online" - these are experiences and encounters of their own (also generally bad, I believe). An example Aarseth gives is the I Ching - where of course you need to know how to read hexagrams, or have a reference handy, just as you need to speak English to read a book in English, but where the important thing is that you interact with the narrative generating object at hand to create a story. Geoff Ryman's 253 might be another example, where you choose how to construct your experience of the action, even though that action has a terminal point (which is where Half-Life is interesting - you can be standing somewhere else when someone says something that advances the plot, but it will still be said. You can't avoid being knocked unconscious in the middle of the game, and so on). A Fighting Fantasy gamebook, although it uses the same mechanical activities, might be seen as an experience where you keep indulging in extranoematic activities...

But. But.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:48 / 21.03.09
And, of course, where this all collapses is that none of it really helps to understand the usage with reference to The Prisoner - whether it was a misapplication, or an application of the mathematical or physical sense, or whatever - and it won't, because the interviewer was unable to get clarification, because it was a series of questions sent over by email, or because he did not feel it was relevant, or because he didn't have space to include the explanation, or whatever. I think there's a question there concerning the way these things are reported, which is partly a problem because the reportage comes primarily from fans, but that's another issue again.
 
 
Neon Snake
11:11 / 21.03.09
Thanks for the clarification - I appreciate it.

I've not decided that "non-trivial" isn't a good fit - I noted that "non-typical" wasn't as good a description as I felt initially. It still might be a good fit, but my phrasing (my assumption (1) above) put the emphasis on the "effort" itself rather than the type of effort required.

I'm certainly not sure that I understand the word - either in the sense that it should be used or in the sense that Morrison appears to be using it. I'm not sure that Morrison is using it in the sense that it should be used - but I'm curious about both what it actually means, and by what Morrison means when using it in reference to The Prisoner and his own work. If these are different, then so be it.

Any sense that I'm talking about what I think it "ought" to mean is more an attempt to understand what I think Morrison thinks it means in the context of his work.

(I think I understand what it means mathematically, but am not at all convinved that it parallels usefully the literary usage - but then your post indicates that it's not being used in the same sense, instead the word is being used because of its roots, not its mathematical meaning, yes?)

I'm struggling with extranoematic, Haus. A piece here indicates that it is any action "outside of thought", for example "solving puzzles, decrypting codes, or even reading inverted text with a mirror".

These would seem to be actions that aren't typical when reading a book or watching a film.

Is it the typicality that's important? Or the greater amount of effort necessary, even if it's of a similar nature to a non-ergodic work?

So, going back to my Matrix example - just going on the above, where you need to carry out non-typical actions to fully get the whole story, it would seem to be accurate.

Or, is the point that you don't need to have played the games to get the whole story - the story is whole in and of itself, just having watched the films; the games and the animated shorts merely fill in some details that might enhance the films, but are not essential to it?

The I Ching is, in some senses, meangingless if just read through - it requires interaction through the use of coins/yarrow sticks to be meaningful (casting aside for one moment its possible value as a philosophical work). Similarly a computer game requires interaction. Deus Ex might be a good example if you've played it - certain scenes are dependant on your previous actions.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
15:34 / 21.03.09
To be fair, when I said that "your entire library could be ergodic" I was taking a very Borgesian view of culture.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
16:15 / 21.03.09
"Look at Klarion up there. He doesn't want to know what ergodic actually means, and why indeed would he? Is he going to be hanging out with mathematicians, or with literary theorists? Unlikely. He wants to feel close to the great man. So, having not heard of the word until yesterday, he is now telling people what it means, because what he actually needs is not to understand it, but to fail to understand it in the right way."

Honestly, Bruce is right on the money here. (Except I actually would like to hang out with literary theorists and soak up the brain juice and glory, Bauhaus style).

"So, any book can be ergodic (pick it up, open it at random, open it at random again), any film can be ergodic (select a random chapter on the DVD, watch it, select another one, watch it), anything at all can be ergodic, and by extension The Prisoner was simply the first cultural product the interviewee ever encountered."

When you put it like that it does sound rather bat-shit. But that wasn't really what I was getting at. I wasn't advocating random examination of objects, merely suggesting that it is totally possible to have a "hypertext" experience with any piece of literature or cultural product.

What seems to separate "the Prisoner" is that you have to make some investigative effort to get the most value out it. Or to put it another way, the Prisoner warrants an "ergodic investigation/interaction."

case in point, watch the series (esp. ep 16 & 17) for free:
http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner-1960s-series/
 
 
penitentvandal
20:27 / 21.03.09
I'm not sure (and I speak as a Prisoner fan from way back - ex Six-of-One member and all that) that The Prisoner actually is ergodic literature. I think the idea that it is stems from the well-attested fact that the episodes were shown in the wrong order, and have not always been shown in what is considered to be the right order when repeated since.

What that right order is has been debated, but I don't think that makes the series ergodic in the sense being discussed here. You can opt to view the episodes in whatever order you choose really, but you can't determine what happens to Number 6. You can't change it so that at the end of the series he assumes control of the Village and becomes a dictator. You can't determine any of the shots or structures yourself.

It's debatable to what extent a long narrative can be ergodic anyway. Raymond Queneau's '100 Billion Poems' is ergodic because the reader can determine the structure of the poems themselves. Ayn Rand's play 'Night of January 16th' is ergodic because the audience determine the ending whenever the play is performed(presumably in the same sense Batman: Death in the Family was an ergodic work when it was first published as a series, but hasn't been since). But a novel probably couldn't really be ergodic, because it needs to maintain narrative cohesion over a long duration.
 
 
This Sunday
05:24 / 22.03.09
So, Twin Peaks requires, arguably, more effort than Buffy, but it's the same kind of effort.

It is? I missed the visual synecdoche or deliberate viewer-response moments in what little of Buffy I've seen. If you meant that you're processing sound, vision, and motion in a sequence of timed episodes, sure, but really, ergodic shouldn't have to be pieced to be ergodic literature, or the word's failing at some point (a point that may be the distinction between ergodic literatures and hypertexts). Part of it should just be an issue of the symbols/elements you thread in the work, regardless of what else is there. Arguably, there's more request from the parties responsible, with Twin Peaks or Dhalgren than there is with Buffy the Vampire Slayer or an Anne Rice novel (which isn't a judgment on the works, otherwise, only on what intent is there).
 
 
Neon Snake
08:34 / 22.03.09
I'm not sure that this is what you're after, DD, but Buffy is in some parts allegorical; a tale about growing up, rather than (just) a tale about a girl who kills vampires.

The most obviously represented of these is a later season which focuses on Willow's increasing use of (and reliance on) magic, deemed to be dangerous to her health, and her constant insistence that she isn't letting it get out of control. This is mean't to parallel substance abuse and addiction.

It is extraordinarily explicit in it's intent (Whedon is pretty much sitting next to you, elbowing you in the ribs, whispering "DO YOU SEE?!" in your ear), so I'm slightly hesitant to even call it allegory, but the intent is still there. Even though you could hardly miss it as the season progresses, the intent is still that you think about addiction and how it applies to your own life, not just to the character of Willow on the show.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

My memories of Twin Peaks are hazy, DD, it's been a very long time - can you give me a couple of examples from that show of "viewer-response" moments, so I'm clearer on what you mean?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:25 / 22.03.09
I'm struggling with extranoematic, Haus.

Hmm. Best way to do this? OK, at the risk of sounding like a nonce, back to Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek has standard ways to make verbs into nouns. A noema is a thing that is thought about (noo), much as a poem (poema) is a thing that is made (poieo). So, in this context extranoematic means outside the thing being thought about - which IMHO is a bit bollocks, because what you're thinking about is by definition the thing you are thinking about. What it functionally means is that you do something outside the trivial processes of interacting with a text - which is a circular proposition, I realise.

It might be worth thinking about what the difference is between the examples in your link - solving puzzles, decrypting codes, or even reading inverted text with a mirror - and the examples you are giving, which don't involve an interaction with the text but rather putting down the text and going off to interact with something else entirely. You're not talking about interacting with the Matrix in a nontrivial, or indeed non-typical way, but of ceasing to interact with it and interacting with something else (a comic book, a video game, like that). I think you're describing two different processes.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:32 / 22.03.09
I'm not sure (and I speak as a Prisoner fan from way back - ex Six-of-One member and all that) that The Prisoner actually is ergodic literature. I think the idea that it is stems from the well-attested fact that the episodes were shown in the wrong order, and have not always been shown in what is considered to be the right order when repeated since.

I would agree - I don't think that the text invites you to reorder the nodes, nor that reordering the nodes makes a significant difference to the experience of the text. If you feel like it, go for it - there is a transmission order and a "plot" order, roughly, just as there is for Firefly, effectively - although in that case there is a framing narrative when the pilot is eventually shown. To address Neon Snake's question (although I don't think "going away and looking things up" is an action-requirement of an ergodic text), you don't really need to know anything outside the Prisoner to enjoy it, no. Knowing that Patrick McGoohan starred in Danger Man might give you a different perspective, if you want to imagine that the Prisoner is John Drake, but that's about it. A vague knowledge of the 60s, of spy films, that sort of thing, might be useful but I don't know at what point it becomes a research project.
 
 
Neon Snake
18:18 / 22.03.09
What it functionally means is that you do something outside the trivial processes of interacting with a text - which is a circular proposition, I realise.

Ok, I think I get it. The I Ching is probably the most useful example, if I'm grasping it correctly, although the old Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, with the attendant rolling of dice and checking against stats written down on a separate piece of paper also seems to work well.

If I'm understanding your point about The Matrix correctly, then the distinction is that the "outside" actions (tossing coins and forming hexagrams, rolling dice against Luck) are still very specifically relating to the books, which are then immediately returned to, once the outside actions are performed?

So, The Matrix could only be ergodic if we took the games as part and parcel of the whole experience, and classed The Matrix as a package which *has* to include the games, the comic stories, and so on - which I'm not quite prepared to do, taking the point that they're non-essential elements of the story, and are not forced upon the viewer should they choose to sit down of a Saturday afternoon and watch the boxed set.

Returning to the video game examples, then (prompted by the Half-Life example I found online) - you've played Bioshock, I think, going on a couple of posts I'm sure I've seen elsewhere? Would that be classed as ergodic storytelling, since the participant can affect the story in a very real way?

And if so, are there games that could not be classed as ergodic - Doom, for the sake of example, since it's essentially linear?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:41 / 22.03.09
Just want to thank you for your posts on this page, Haus (in particular ~ of course they are part of a dialogue). They're really interesting and informative, and I think they're exploring and explaining something without being patronising.

I haven't encountered these terms before myself. Is House of Leaves ergodic? How about B.S. Johnson's (excellent) The Unfortunates, which is a box disguised as a book, and contains a bunch of chapters all mixed up out of order?
 
 
Neon Snake
00:07 / 23.03.09
Just want to thank you for your posts on this page, Haus (in particular ~ of course they are part of a dialogue). They're really interesting and informative, and I think they're exploring and explaining something without being patronising.

Yeah, I'll second this, Haus, for whatever it's worth. I hadn't come across the terms before the interview, and appreciate the time you're taking with explaining them.
 
 
Spaniel
07:10 / 23.03.09
Ditto
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
20:19 / 23.03.09
http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802

I think this needs to be moved off thread. But above link argues convincingly for an ergodic experience (watching it backwards) of the "Shining." I'd argue that this kind of spacial game could be played with the Prisoner (esp. with the final episodes).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:45 / 23.03.09
I'd say, actually, that that isn't ergodic, it's ludic. The nodes occur in the same places, you get to them the same way, they do not change depending on context. I mean, by your interpretation of the word it's ergodic, because it involves watching something out of sequence, but I don't know if that's a definition of ergodic that maps to any previous usage of the term.
 
 
Malio
19:31 / 29.03.09
A few recent interviews. Some of these have been linked in other threads, some not at all.

Wizard Retrospective: Grant Morrison.

Wizard - Grant Morrison Kills The Batman.

Wizard - Up Close With Grant Morrison.

Nashua Telegraph - Bruce Wayne Goes Darkly Into The Night.

Grant Morrison: The Comic Foundry Interview.

Newsarama - Grant Morrison On Kill Your Boyfriend.

Newsarama - Final Crisis Exit Interview Part 1 and Part 2.

IGN - Grant Morrison Discusses Batman & Robin.

MySpace - Grant Morrison Creator of Seaguy!

Antennae - Grant Morrison: We3.
 
 
alex supertramp
03:46 / 30.03.09
If I'm understanding the meaning of ergodic storytelling here (and the odds are I'm not), I think the television series LOST may qualify.

LOST is a show riddled with references. If you take a look at Lostpedia.com, each episode has a list of literary, cultural, and episode references as long as your arm. A lot of characters have philosopher names, or scientist names. Books with very high significance to the episode and to core concepts in the show appear in the foreground and background often. Many episode titles are book titles. Not only do these books supplement the viewing experience, sometimes they define it. What I mean by that is when I saw Ben Linus (a main character, roll with me) reading Valis by Philip K. Dick, I went out and read it and understood all of LOST in a completely different light. When I saw Dark Tower by Stephen King on Ben Linus's book shelf, I read that and my understanding of the show was again redefined.

Besides the high amount of pertinent references, LOST also has something called the LOST experience, a reality game that was inside canon but outside the televised show. Many important plot points in the show can be better understood through the game. Some plot points, such as what the numbers are, what dharma stands for, what the hanso foundation is, (important show ideas, take my word for it) can only be explained through the LOST experience.

Instead of passively absorbing the work, it demands extra effort to understand all the literary references. The Lost experience illuminates core plot points on the show. So I think LOST is a show that is using ergodic storytelling, if I understand correctly that that entails the viewer needing to put in extra effort to understand the entirety of the work.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:10 / 30.03.09
But those are optional extras. I have watched every episode of Lost, but not followed up any of your other links ~ not read the books featured within the diegesis, or played any of the three ARGs, or read the work of Jeremy Bentham or John Locke and applied it to the show. I still understand the story and its characters, and I don't think in the producers' terms I am missing anything ~ I think watching the show alone is meant to be a coherent and self-contained experience, and the other aspects you mention are bonus easter eggs that might enhance your experience of it, but aren't necessary.
 
 
alex supertramp
07:45 / 30.03.09
"But those are optional extras. I have watched every episode of Lost, but not followed up any of your other links ~ not read the books featured within the diegesis, or played any of the three ARGs, or read the work of Jeremy Bentham or John Locke and applied it to the show. I still understand the story and its characters, and I don't think in the producers' terms I am missing anything ~ I think watching the show alone is meant to be a coherent and self-contained experience, and the other aspects you mention are bonus easter eggs that might enhance your experience of it, but aren't necessary."

You may understand the show, and I'm sure you do, but I think that you are definitely missing something. I mean, by the simple act of choosing not to follow up on outside sources of Lost canon, you are "missing anything". For example, a pretty crucial part of Lost canon came out at the end of the Lost experience, a video explaining the origin of the numbers, what they mean, and their relevance to the island. None of that has been mentioned on the show, except in minor background details (see the Blast Door Map in season 2, which gives a smorgasborg of information you can't absorb in the 2 seconds you see it).

If you didn't understand David hume's work with determinism, Desmond hume's plight with time travel and realizing "you can't change it" makes a little less sense. Granted, it still makes sense plot wise, but if you didn't read any John Locke, you're missing out in the episode "Tabula Rasa" in the theme department.

What is necessary when absorbing any work? I could read Invisibles, and enjoy and understand it without going into anything else. That's meant to be a coherent and self contained experience. But would you truly understand it in its entirety? Extended narratives like these are a bit like mosaics. You can still get the big picture if you're missing some of the tiles. Extra effort is required if you want all the tiles, but not necessary.

Again, my understanding of ergodic storytelling could be off. I'm curious what Bruce Willis aka haus thinks.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:56 / 30.03.09
You may understand the show, and I'm sure you do, but I think that you are definitely missing something. I mean, by the simple act of choosing not to follow up on outside sources of Lost canon, you are "missing anything". For example, a pretty crucial part of Lost canon came out at the end of the Lost experience, a video explaining the origin of the numbers, what they mean, and their relevance to the island. None of that has been mentioned on the show, except in minor background details (see the Blast Door Map in season 2, which gives a smorgasborg of information you can't absorb in the 2 seconds you see it).

Ironically, I now remember I did read a summary of The Lost Experience (rather than playing it) so I remember I did acquaint myself with this information. However, I don't think it added anything, really, to my understanding of the show. I don't think it matters what the Numbers were "for". I think a lot of this is McGuffin that was inserted as intriguing clues, then retroactively given a meaning ~ I don't believe a lot of this information is integral to the plot, rather than bonus links.

The equation relating to the numbers has not, as far as I remember (I know I've just shown my memory to be faulty) had any further significance or role in the show since the Lost Experience. Sure, it's in canon, but you don't need to know it.

Does this work as a parallel? The backstory of bounty hunter Aurra Sing and Twi'lek Jedi Aayla Secura are in Star Wars canon. Sure, knowing their adventures in the Expanded Universe, approved by Lucas, might give you a feeling of deeper understanding, and a degree of satisfaction ~ it might make you feel you have gained an important context that adds to your engagement with the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. But to my mind, those are entirely bonus features that aren't really integral to the core text of Star Wars.

Maybe the important thing for me here is producer intention. I think the core text of Lost (the TV show) like the core text of Star Wars (the movies) is intended to work just fine without those add-ons. If the central text was not fully comprehensible without those add-ons, I'd agree that Expanded Universe paperbacks and ARGs are part of the central text (rather than peripherals). But I don't know if I can think of an example where this is the case. You don't need to play Enter The Matrix to fully understand and grasp the story of the Matrix films. You don't need to visit the websites for Nathan Petrelli's Presidential campaign or Mr Saxon's prime ministerial campaign to understand and enjoy the stories of Heroes and Doctor Who.

I don't think we are at the stage where those aspects of the popular text are genuinely part of the core, rather than satellites.

Taking your view, where would it end? Have I understood and fully appreciated Lord of the Rings unless I've read The Silmarillion? Have I fully grasped Alice in Wonderland unless I've read a biography of Carroll? Then why is one biography enough? Don't I also have to read his maths treatises and study his photography? Where does the mosaic end, and by your principle, what kind of text is NOT an ergodic mosaic?
 
 
unbecoming
11:23 / 30.03.09
and how would it be any different from intertextuality?

"any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another."

Julie Kristeva


Apologies if that is exactly the same question as was just asked.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
11:32 / 30.03.09
Yeah, one thing I was asking was whether all texts aren't "mosaic" in terms of the fact that you could enhance your understanding of them by following up leads and exploring further connections. I have read a great deal about Lewis Carroll, for instance, and I think my understanding of his work is richer and deeper because of it.

But while the Alice books are actually prime examples of playful texts, they were not intended to only be understood as part of a broader matrix. Carroll didn't require his readers ~ actually, it's very probable he didn't WANT his readers ~ to undertake any further exploration of Oxford 1865, or his own work as Dodgson, or his letters, photographs or diaries ~ in order to understand "Alice". The books are arguably enhanced by further study, but they exist as self-contained entities, and were intended to work as such.

Lost is a different matter, in that the extras were mostly thrown out intentionally (I don't know if the producers actually intended or expected anyone to read the work of David Hume, but they intended and expected some people to follow the ARG), but still, I don't think the extras are necessary to understand the main text.

That is, I think they are still extras (peripherals, satellites, bonuses, easter eggs), and not part of the main text. If was convinced that an ARG or a recommended reading was actually part of the core text of the show, I would consider that differently.
 
 
Spaniel
11:54 / 30.03.09
Seems to me that Lost doesn't fit the definition of erodogic given by Haus at all.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011

 
  
Add Your Reply