February 17th, 2010 / 1:29 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Jimmy Chen—
Born Magazine’s “hyper” e-books [Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | Example 4], self described as “cinematic and interactive interpretations,” are very impressive yet a little distracting. The traditional HTML versions — not because of content, but comparison — seem frigid, naked, unsure of their capacity. If the medium is the message, is the message that we’ve lost our faith in words? Or that we have some new killer software?
We definitely have some new killer software.
I was really impressed by the first example (Sasha West’s Zoology) and thought by extension the text was not necessarily a bit unsure or naked, but almost rushed. I mostly enjoyed the interpretation by the visual artist, who slowed down the pace of the poem by shortening lines. This works mostly for the poem, who’s imagery lends itself to a very meditative tone/cadence. There was really one place where the breaks worked against the poem, breaking off the first line after grass (and neglecting to place a comma, the only place I think there was missed punctuation) which coupled “the muddy stream and the camel loves the turtle” to my confusion. It definitely made me look to see what else I could find of West’s poetry.
In Outrances (example 2) I couldn’t even follow the text with all the clutter and distraction. I didn’t get moved much by the poem, and in that sense the e-book was much more successful in creating a feel and getting a response.
I guess the success of the book is really in the interpretation of the poem. I wonder how closely the authors worked with the designers/artists? Overall a great magazine though
We definitely have some new killer software.
I was really impressed by the first example (Sasha West’s Zoology) and thought by extension the text was not necessarily a bit unsure or naked, but almost rushed. I mostly enjoyed the interpretation by the visual artist, who slowed down the pace of the poem by shortening lines. This works mostly for the poem, who’s imagery lends itself to a very meditative tone/cadence. There was really one place where the breaks worked against the poem, breaking off the first line after grass (and neglecting to place a comma, the only place I think there was missed punctuation) which coupled “the muddy stream and the camel loves the turtle” to my confusion. It definitely made me look to see what else I could find of West’s poetry.
In Outrances (example 2) I couldn’t even follow the text with all the clutter and distraction. I didn’t get moved much by the poem, and in that sense the e-book was much more successful in creating a feel and getting a response.
I guess the success of the book is really in the interpretation of the poem. I wonder how closely the authors worked with the designers/artists? Overall a great magazine though
“I couldn’t even follow the text with all the clutter and distraction.”
I agree. The line from the first example: “The Man I love will have the muzzle of bear.” After viewing the “hyper e-book,” the only remnants of this particular line I could recall was the provided visual of an actual “bear” or bear-shape. That bear shape robs the words of their imagery.
The HTML version does what I’m sure the poem was intended to (or any poem without the aid of visuals). The “hyper” version is its own entirely different schema–a digital menagerie–RHINO–CAMEL–GRASS–TURTLE–SUN–MOON–BEE–FLOWER–HONEY. Those are the words the “hyper” version has reduced this great poem to.
It’s a shame and no different than the emotionally conscious music one would hear during an episode of Full House. “Now Michelle, I know you feel alone sometimes, but I’ll always be here for you . . . “
“I couldn’t even follow the text with all the clutter and distraction.”
I agree. The line from the first example: “The Man I love will have the muzzle of bear.” After viewing the “hyper e-book,” the only remnants of this particular line I could recall was the provided visual of an actual “bear” or bear-shape. That bear shape robs the words of their imagery.
The HTML version does what I’m sure the poem was intended to (or any poem without the aid of visuals). The “hyper” version is its own entirely different schema–a digital menagerie–RHINO–CAMEL–GRASS–TURTLE–SUN–MOON–BEE–FLOWER–HONEY. Those are the words the “hyper” version has reduced this great poem to.
It’s a shame and no different than the emotionally conscious music one would hear during an episode of Full House. “Now Michelle, I know you feel alone sometimes, but I’ll always be here for you . . . “
If they’re considered as a piece of art – the merging of words, sounds. images and animation online – then I think they’re beautiful and inspiring and a fascinating exploration of using the medium of the web to its utmost. More power to them. If one is approaching these works with the aim of only reading the text then, yes, it’s bound to be rather disappointing and even distracting. Which is why, quite rightly they provide a (still beautifully presented) HTML version (which – sad web geekery interrupting for a moment – you should always do anyway when providing essential content in Flash).
I found it enjoyable to watch the full works – soaking up the experience of them – then read the words afterwards.
If they’re considered as a piece of art – the merging of words, sounds. images and animation online – then I think they’re beautiful and inspiring and a fascinating exploration of using the medium of the web to its utmost. More power to them. If one is approaching these works with the aim of only reading the text then, yes, it’s bound to be rather disappointing and even distracting. Which is why, quite rightly they provide a (still beautifully presented) HTML version (which – sad web geekery interrupting for a moment – you should always do anyway when providing essential content in Flash).
I found it enjoyable to watch the full works – soaking up the experience of them – then read the words afterwards.
“I found it enjoyable to watch the full works – soaking up the experience of them – then read the words afterwards.”
Yeah, exactly. I gave up trying to read and just watched like I would with any short film. I definitely enjoyed them. I guess if I wasn’t presented them as poems (say, a friend just sent me a link in an email without naming them poems) I don’t know if I’d try to “read” them or just experience them.
“I found it enjoyable to watch the full works – soaking up the experience of them – then read the words afterwards.”
Yeah, exactly. I gave up trying to read and just watched like I would with any short film. I definitely enjoyed them. I guess if I wasn’t presented them as poems (say, a friend just sent me a link in an email without naming them poems) I don’t know if I’d try to “read” them or just experience them.
why have the words there at all then?
why have the words there at all then?
Good question. I guess I need to clarify a little. I am mostly referring to the second example, which is the most cluttered in terms of sound, movement and design. I definitely still read the words, but in a different way than I would read them “on the page” so to speak. In Outrances each line or collection of words is presented piece by piece as found objects, often abutted by lots of other text. Each collection of words is more fragmented and isolated, so I had a hard time connecting all these fragments into a narrative. Which is why I said I gave up “reading” them.
The words are an important part, and I didn’t mean I would strike them completely, but (in the specific instance of Outrances) the presentation was more powerful than reading the accompanying html.
In other examples I had an easier time of actively reading than the second one.
Good question. I guess I need to clarify a little. I am mostly referring to the second example, which is the most cluttered in terms of sound, movement and design. I definitely still read the words, but in a different way than I would read them “on the page” so to speak. In Outrances each line or collection of words is presented piece by piece as found objects, often abutted by lots of other text. Each collection of words is more fragmented and isolated, so I had a hard time connecting all these fragments into a narrative. Which is why I said I gave up “reading” them.
The words are an important part, and I didn’t mean I would strike them completely, but (in the specific instance of Outrances) the presentation was more powerful than reading the accompanying html.
In other examples I had an easier time of actively reading than the second one.
What are words for, when no one listens anymore? Words for.
What are words for, when no one listens anymore? Words for.
I dig this.
I dig this.
i tried to look at one but it made me have to force quit my browser.
i think i prefer the older, simpler ebooks.
it seems stupid that it’s even possible to use the word “old” to describe an ebook.
i tried to look at one but it made me have to force quit my browser.
i think i prefer the older, simpler ebooks.
it seems stupid that it’s even possible to use the word “old” to describe an ebook.
Because words can be part of a piece of art, can’t they?
I think – as Jeremiah said – the magazine’s mistake may have been to present them as ‘poems’, which puts a certain expectation in people’s minds as to what a poem should be. Although I’m all for overturning expectations, too …
Because words can be part of a piece of art, can’t they?
I think – as Jeremiah said – the magazine’s mistake may have been to present them as ‘poems’, which puts a certain expectation in people’s minds as to what a poem should be. Although I’m all for overturning expectations, too …
valid.
i think its in interesting question, talking about the ‘medium of the web’ and does one need to separate the hyper from the text and vice versa in order to experience it, and if so, why merge them in the first place.
valid.
i think its in interesting question, talking about the ‘medium of the web’ and does one need to separate the hyper from the text and vice versa in order to experience it, and if so, why merge them in the first place.