Ashley Zizich

Senior Seminar

Drucker Response

September 16, 2017

            While reading Johanna Drucker’s article, Graphic Devices: Narration and Navigation, I was struck by how she relates electronic devices in helping structure and contribute to the narrative in literature. While I would agree that graphic devices are a dimension of narrative texts, I do not believe they help or hinder their analysis and interpretation. Drucker uses examples of how writers in the 19^th century had experimented with using images in their fiction and how it helped to ground readers to the story. This example reminded me of graphic novels. While there is a certain form and specificity in the crafting of graphic novels, I understand it is a very deliberate process. I looked up several Krazy Kat comics that Drucker references so I could relate to her point. The comics that George Herriman created are very deliberate and not like any other comic. Several scenes are depicted into one, but in different panels. The way the comic was presented really helped the reader grasp the story.

            Having written this article in 2008, I can assume Drucker was speaking of graphic devices such as illustrations, and form of narrative. At first, I thought she might have been speaking of graphic devises as computers, or e-readers. I sort of thought while reading this article that the graphics in some novels, stories, comics, magazines, etc., are often misrepresented in electronic form, taking away from the overall connection and structure of the piece. For example, I am an avid reader on my kindle. I seem to read more on my kindle at times than I do in print form. I remember downloading a book by Ransom Riggs called Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children. I had read earlier that unlikely, creepy, vintage pictures inspired this novel the author had found and collected over the years. These pictures had little or no explanation behind them. For example, one picture was of a young girl with a huge gaping hole right in the middle of her stomach that you could see straight through. Riggs had incorporated these photos into his novel to tell the story. The photos were placed at strategic places throughout the novel and they helped the reader gain a picture for what the author was trying to describe. On my kindle, though, the photos would not download, and often if they did, they were cut off and depicted half on one page and the other half on the next page. This negated the entire purpose of reading the novel for me. I went out and bought the book in print form, and I was glad I did so. While this example may be off subject, it just reminded me that graphics is certainly important if they are done with purpose.

            William Gibson’s, Agrippa: A Book of the Dead was a literary form and experiment I was not even aware existed. It was certainly interesting to read about how he made formed this poem on a floppy disk and then treated the pages with photo sensitive chemicals so the words would disappear once they were read. The fact that this electronic poem was conceived and published in 1992 is phenomenal. The entire form of this poem was so advanced, and continues to be so advanced that I can see where some authors and artists can draw inspiration from Gibson. This work reminded me that literary works are often conceived of in written, paper form, and not any electronic form.

            Joseph Tabbi’s article speaks of the thought that scholars should devote close attention to what is continuous in computing that we give to the formation of cannons in the literary and cultural fields. I agree there is an always changing, rapid growing push in technology, and it often means that works become canonized before their time. It seems we are so quick to take a rapid approach to the changing technology, that the older works do not get the attention they deserve. Works do seem always doomed to catch up with technology. The medias in which the works are produced deserve to be celebrated as the works are. The connection that Tabbi makes about the author not being the only creative process is something I have never thought of. There is an editor, typesetter, designer, sales people, distribution people all involved in making a literary piece accessible. Another thing I never thought of was the fact that technological courses typecast these skills into tech support and nothing more. Most of these students will not partake in any advanced courses in literature, thus never moving into humanities jobs. Isn’t the technology in the field of humanities becoming increasingly important in our field? Why aren’t more humanities majors made to take more technology courses? It seems the courses in that aspect are far and few between. I always say that I feel I am at disadvantage when it comes to the fact of the advancements. There are often programs I do not know how to use and technology I feel is foreign to me.

            I could go on and on about Tabbi’s article. One more thing I wanted to touch upon was when he raises the question of contemporary criticism. Does it trace to literary cultural development written into the changing technological environment, or has literary history been superseded by technological progress? Does the literary meaning lose something along the way as it is passed through technology? I do believe this is the case in most aspects. As I see my children go forward in school, and technology become more advanced, I find myself sad that eventually they will be reading books on the computer rather than in print. While I feel there are positive and negative aspects to this, I know I will always instill a firm knowledge of literary works in print for my family.