RE: Digital Narratives

On to digital narratives. Of the five digital narratives that I read/experienced/navigated/etc. I found Six Sex Scenes and DAKOTA to be the most interesting to me; more on that later. The initial question that seems to need addressing with regard to these narratives is to their “conceptual framework.” Works like Six Sex Scenes seem to mimic the cognitive semantic map. In other words, the use of hypertext links allow for the user to navigate through the thoughts and intentions of the author in much the same way that the author would remember these events happening. In that regard, the conceptual framework of the pieces themselves is analogous to Bush’s concept of the “memex.” Rather than being scientifically-rooted (that is, they are not meant specifically for researching), these narratives are personal, autobiographical, and experiential. Works like Six Sex Scenes appear—whether artificially or not—to be autobiography, whereas works like DISTANCE (which asks, “Is technology a veil?”) try to represent—through narrative—the way in which the author has tried to navigate her own experience to long-distance, communication-based media. So, these digital narratives are capable of being autobiography and a great deal more.

Because these digital narratives run the gamut from autobiography to translation—or distillation—of experience, a question is begged of the reader: are these events really non-fiction? In other words, are these true experiences? In my experience, this question has been put to rest in the world of non-fiction. Currently, whether an expression/outshoot/love of postmodernism or not, I encounter people who have no problems with the embellishment that occurs when someone tries to write non-fiction. I believe that the lines between fiction and non-fiction are eroding and that there is no such thing as objectivity. On a tangent, if there were such a thing as objectivity, it would present itself in an incredibly fascistic manner to the writer of non-fiction; it would dictate their writing to a paralyzing degree.

That said, I see this play between fiction and non-fiction (which is most apparent in MY BODY, Six Sex Scenes, and DISTANCE) as a natural artistic offshoot of Internet phenomena like Wikipedia (or, perhaps, the other way around, as I believe many of these narratives pre-date Wikipedia). Such a website asserts that there is an “absolute truth” that can be achieved through labor and scholarship (the collective efforts of those people who wish to see “truth” achieved); in doing so, Wikipedia commodifies “truth.” What these artists do, then, is distort this premise by embracing subjectivity in their work (whether it be the hyperbolic, break-neck dialogue/monologue of DAKOTA or the fantastic, sensual writing in MY BODY) and thus allow their work to more closely represent “reality.” I think a better articulation is to say this: these artists embrace fiction in a way that makes their non-fiction works even more so. While the artists “manipulate their data,” they do so in a way undoubtedly reflects their relation to reality and thus achieves a closer approximation of their experience or narrative. Because these narratives are intentionally digital, Laporta’s question, “Is the virtual, real?” is especially relevant. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer; I equivocate.

Finally, there is one more aspect that I would like to touch upon. In redridinghood, I stumbled upon the artist’s “thesis.” It reads:

Does point and click interactivity destroy the story?

I think, to a certain degree, that it does. Take this hypothetical: someone is navigating redridinghood. They get to the point in the story where they are “supposed” to click on the correct window to further the story. This person, however, clicks every window but the correct window and gives up. The story, for this user, has effectively been destroyed (unless you want to make the case that this is the story, bold one).

Therefore, do the other texts we’ve read destroy or pervert the narrative? If I missed a piece of MY BODY, did I miss the point? I would think the artist who works with digital narratives intends for the user’s navigation to dictate the story, but works like DAKOTA show an artist who does not wish for the reader/viewer to control the flow and temporality of the piece. Thus, there appears to be conflict between whether the user should be allowed—or not—to dictate the movement of the piece.