E-Lit can be seen as having multiple elements. Interactive elements and under-lying mathematical algorithms where the "work" is done.

In the past, other forms of electronic media such as video games that were not given credit as a literary value are now being accredited. This article states that most things being presented in electronic media have some sort of literary value.

This author has a more humorous take on the definition of e-lit. Saying that "the book is dead, long live the link". Writing evolves every step of the way in our lives and has become mainly digitized.

Does this privilege form over content, or the programmers over the tool users? Is this how we want to exclude within e-lit?

It seems, Danny Cheesums likes Scott Walker. :)

But, really, this is very interesting. Our preferences are being guessed and we're bombarded with things that we might find interesting. I would like to see a study of the efficacy of this particular technology.

Really nice and funny quote :)

This, again, seems to be getting at the why of the medium, which is what I find most interesting in trying to define e-lit as a genre/canon.

This is an interesting one, it seems like there is an entire curatorial process/practice behind the digital forms of art. It's also curious that he does not refer to that process as "editing". The visual and literary arts terminology is mixed up again.

Quite odd, the idea of a non-human individual applying faculties and cognoscitive tools which can't even be approached by other beings, very cyborg-ish, this definetely goes beyond simple relations between bits and electronic devices.

I rate this a lot. This removes the technology-platform-specific nature of other definitions and looks underneath the literary work itself. I really rate the reference to 'underpinnings' - it strongly speaks to how intensely integrated both the literary experience is alongside the mechanics of that digital experience.

I find this, as well as the whole concept of a simple, to be much more precise a way of defining electronic literature through its own nature and not through the concept of literary arts and its translations. As many electronic literature artists are not necessarily good traditional writers, it seems that the definition of the field should focus more on the technological underpinnings of the practices rather than their relations to literary arts. This depiction of artists exploiting and pushing the envelope of text/algorithm interaction captures this aspect quite well.

I think this is an interesting way to express the evolution of electronic literature, but link is quite possibly dating as fast as 'computer' in the ELO version. Perhaps 'long live the code'?

This covers some of the complexities in trying to interlock creative arts with rigid technology, all within a single description. It calls out how fast technology dates and platforms change while noting how literary creativity will not be tied to those boundaries.

Very useful tool to underline the essence of the e-literary artifact and its forms of expression

I like the fact that this definition comes at the very end because it finally tackles electronic literature for what it is - work of art. It is also interesting that it opens to door to giving credit to artists who do not necessarily need to be good 'traditional' writers to be good electronic literature artists. In that electronic literature is significantly different from the traditional literature as the art of word and storytelling.

I think that this synthesizes the difficulties with defining 'electronic literature' quite well. Attempts to define it act as limitations. Stephans clarifies the discussion in the previous link about the divegant terms used and the difficulties in identifying how people are talking about the field. Without a common purpose in the act of creation, I find it hard to see it has a field per se. It feels more open than that.

For anyone in #d004x, Patchwork Girl has a version available for modern systems if you want to check it out.

This article definitely tackles the definition as a true new wave. I try to view older technology too, but I think they might have a point.

Here's Mark Sample's definition (bold emphasis mine):

Electronic literature is literature that is born digitally, a literary work designed on a computer and meant to be "read" on a "computer".

This part of the ELO definition covers the bold part. Earlier they cover the other part.

Here's Mark Sample's definition (bold emphasis mine):

Electronic literature is literature that is born digitally, a literary work designed on a computer and meant to be "read" on a "computer".

This part of the ELO definition covers the bold part. Later they cover the other part.

I cannot completely agree with limitations put with the level of creation. True there are literature "going digital" and cannot count as e-lit, but how about taking already created version and than translate and enrich it to electronic version?

I agree with using the capabilities and contexts, since this means we get to implement more and more elements in the "literature" we create. However, the "computer" can be used also in philosophical way to expand the meaning on one way and to too much limited on another. What about all the phone devices or other electronic devices, even the simplest one. They are becoming a useful way of expressing and e-lit is a main way to do this.

Interactive fiction seems interesting. It sounds like it makes you feel like you are part of what is happening in the story. The story telling you the decision is yours.

A good resource to explore interactive fiction is Frotz. For iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/frotz/id287653015

I agree with the others that these works don't need to be provided or looked at on a computer, but can be looked at on a smart phone, tablet, smart watch, etc.

I have a basic understanding about Kinetic poetry, but I would like to learn more. It is a concept that intrigues me and that I would like to explore. I like the idea of taking poetry to new places. There are lots of interesting possibilities here.

I am wondering if adaptations or transmedia storytelling would be considered a part of e-lit. I would imagine yes, but it's not exactly explicit. What if a piece of e-lit interacts with other forms of media, text, literature, etc? Or is transmedia it's own thing?

It's not quite clear for me what does mean "confrontation with technology". By the way, understanding difference between e-lit and literature "going digital" is the most important

It's the relationship implied here between "literary aspects" and the "capabilities and contexts provided by the stand-alone or networked computer" that I find most interesting in this definition. Which literary aspects are uniquely positioned to do this work? What literary questions is e-lit best positioned to answer?

"Interactive fiction" is something that I have created/been a part of before. I still do it every once in a wile. There is a particular site that I go on for this called Gaia Online. There are a lot of forums threads and clubs dedicated to online role playing. Someone will set the scene with a writing prompt/small story and anyone can join in with their role playing character. It's pretty much improve. It's a lot of fun when you connect with another character and then the story writes itself out.

I find this statement interesting as there are those who believe that sound art can itself be a type of electronic literature. Sound art at its most basic level is narrative. Our human ancestors needed sound to survive, and the first traditions of storytelling were aural.

Wondering where data-scraped pieces fit in all this? Thinking of Jonathan Harris's We Feel Fine http://wefeelfine.org/ and similar pieces. He just released a new one that pulls key words from Twitter and other sources and aggregates them into navigable narrative snippets that are real-time and dynamic, mixed with video and audio clips. The experience is one of "story"(true ones) and could only happen electronically.... how to define? what category here would that fit in?

So interesting to see how the "literariness" of the literature is challenged here. It goes from books and words to a more syncretic view of the creative work. Made me think of comparative studies.

As my comment of which I have had no reply asks is propellerhead music software the same kind of thing, where you create music on the web, share, and people can add to it or do whatever they want to it to make a new piece of music. I'm sorry for being naive, but is this kind of what we are talking about by "born digital"?

The digital landscape moves extremely quickly. Entire digital mediums have evolved, become everyday experiences for millions of people then collapsed and been superseded by a new digital standard many times over between 2010 and today. It will be interesting to analyse whether entirely new literary experiences have risen and evolved during this timeframe or if they are iterative experiences on some of the older showcases. Has any brand new E-Lit been created? It's a fun question to ask and it also impacts the definition in my view - as defining it with definite platforms would lock it to an 'era' of digital mediums and it will become out of date.

I like the meshing of these terms, this is one of the clearest sentences for me when trying to define E-Lit. It's not creatively restrictive, not platform specific, not holding back an experience or a 'reader interaction' and gives an immense space to work within - as long as that work is technically deliberate.

I find the choice of the word 'networked' changes the categorisations under which e-lit could be considered, and is a very specific term. Networked implies that the literary experience must be shareable, or connected or sent or easily accessed. This is not defined in other possible definitions - and makes me wonder whether it's a requirement for a definition, or a restriction.

This note, to me, opens up a particularly complex issue of defining electronic literature. With some bordering fields fairly close to the practices of electronic literature, what is the essential thing that defines electronic literature? Is it the act of reading that is essential in literary art and should we, then, leave out works that are meant more to be thought about than read, like texts that are just too long for any human to ever finish reading?

On another note, does this act of reading imply that there must be a human as the audience of the work of electronic literature?

In general I think it would be good to define a bit more precisely what is understood here under the term 'computer' in order to avoid confusion. I think a computing device would be more appropriate as it would allow more comprehensive elaboration.

So ... not a modern showcase? I hadn't heard of ELO before this, and the concept of a group like this is intriguing, that their showcase stopped being updated five (going on six) years ago doesn't speak positively. Some really amazing things have come out in that time, and will continue to. Is this group frozen in time? I checked the actual showcase and this page is right - the last update is January 2010.

I'm sure there are other things being done here, but for the first section to highlight "hey, we're way out of date" seems like an odd first impression.

Whenever I think of the "literary arts" I think of writing. I think of how technology is forever shifting and yet writing will always be needed. Where I am personally naive is how this passage states that there is more to it. This is where I grow curious, and where I realize that there is a bigger picture than I think we all tend to see. Should be interesting to delve further into this.

I love this line - "the confrontation with technology at the level of creation" - as I think it evokes such a wonderful image of how we can approach the idea of electronic literature.

This seems reasonable, though it might be worth adding "digital" or something similar before "technology" (to make it more of a standalone quote / definition).

One could argue that a pop-up book involves "confrontation with technology at the level of creation", for example. It's just a different kind of technology.

This is our first stop on our tour of electronic literature definitions. Highlight passages here that you find provocative, unclear, or simply interesting! Be sure to add a #d004x tag to your comments.

After you've finished marking up this page, you can go to the next stop on our tour: http://dtc-wsuv.org/mla2012/scholarship.html

Be sure to open the hypothes.is sidebar again on that page!

I think that this is the central point of the question. E-lit is a literary piece that take advantage from the capabilities and contexts of computers. To be more precise I think that is literature that can't exists without this conditions

The definition for this term has evolved and changed over time. The original definition was different until works of fiction through digital medium became popular. The author claims that the term "e-lit" is too broad and has changed meaning over time to the point where the original definition is not recognized as it should.

I feel like this author was trying to make the point that everyone will have a different definition for E-lit because we can't filter what is and what isn't e-lit using a computer program.

We talk about e-lit being a contested term, but so too then is even the idea of something being "literary" and also thinking about authorial intent. Should that matter? And really, these two debates intersect, in terms of self-definition, intent, academic definitions, and exclusionary practices. Does it absolutely need to be "literary" to be e-lit?

While this process does not sound ideal, was it better? With the advent of these new technologies, we're bombarded my more media than is necessary (and some of the quality is suspect). Is this a responsible use issue? Or, has the technology caused some rifts or shifts in the quality expectations for published work?

What we're talking about is a good, old-fashioned "debate" around canon formation. I know that Kathi Inman Berens has looked at how gender has intersected with the formation of community and canon around e-lit (at least I remember seeing a talk she gave about it). http://kathiiberens.com/2013/07/19/dh-2013/

Regardless, this is one of the issues I have with distant reading (as fun as it is) is the potential to de-politicize events around canon formation and the rise of a certain genre or mode.

The founding of ELO seems a very important event in the histiry of e-Lit.

So here we're using the ELO's definition, but with the added insight that this definition has acted to consolidate diverse types of e-lit.

This key phrase in the definition is very puzzling. I am still not quite certain what aspects can be defined as important and who makes that specific judgement. (The reader? The academic? The peer?) I'm very keen to work it out though.

This is a fun example that seems to suggest that blending technology frameworks with literary value creates a mash-up of the unexpected, and genres evolve almost to break through the definition.

The point Ms. Rettbers is trying to make is that there is no common agreement regarding what electronic literature stands for. Other terms are equally used to describe the same practice, as defined by ELO, whereas the term electronic literature itself gets used to denote other practices (e.g. digitized print books). The danger also sits in almost arbitrary usage of genres/terminologies which all fall under the core electronic literature practice (hyper text fiction, digital poetry). This also means that numerous works of e-lit art are in danger of not being recognized as such due to the fact they do not get picked up in the 'tagging' process and might fall between the cracks

Oh man, I miss LambdaMOO. So much time spent there in college ...

Here's a link to the same chart in google to play with yourself. I Added "Interactive fiction" to the list since it seemed notably absent, but otherwise has the same items. ngram doesn't go any more current than 2008, sadly.

The list mentioned here is good. If you consider Interactive Fiction in addition, the ifdb is another good resource for new works.

As part of a paper on the emergence of electronic literature as a field of study and practice, this section serves the purpose of distinguishing how the varying terms used have changed over time, while addressing how difficult it is to pinpoint the usage of terms (especially ones that are so non-specific). The author's argument comes down to how the term 'electronic literature' itself is elusive and an understanding of the divergent terminology is helpful in understanding the growth of the field.

The internet became regularly accessible. I think this is why. Using the internet for studying and research became huge. Now that it's not just for work and for leisure, things are shifting.

I think e-lit will have to become more and more included in technology, since it it obvious children nowadays knew how to use electronic devices even before reading. With implementing e-lit as a quality element (and not just not-fantasy-enhancing gameplay) the culture will still have ability to grow. Just that the libraries will be more electronic.

Reading stories on my nook or ipad or even my phone that previously was published in Print is an amazing feat in my opinion. I loved being able to have e-textbooks while I went to school.

I think that the cultural difference here is interesting. This is a nice example of how terms can change based on culture. It's good to know that in Europe, we'd be discussing different things when using the term "digital literature."

Are we chasing something or attempting to articulate a definition of something that is always going to be obsolete (or at least incomplete) the moment we put proverbial pen to paper?

This course and these attempts, to be sure, will continue to evolve. But I appreciate the important direction towards a history and, dare I say it, a tradition. Or, knowing a lot of the people involved, a community might be more appropriate.

So maybe "field" is the wrong word. Maybe this becomes a narrative instead about a community seeking to define itself. But if that's the case, what is our role, as relative outsiders, working to enforce a definition on it?

This is the best and the simpliest definition.

This definition seems more concerned with how works are made and experienced, rather than why they are uniquely suited to this form.

It's interesting that we are taking an academic course on an emergent literary form and academic field and are interacting in a digital medium and experiencing this in a way that would not be meaningful (or possible) without the mediation of our electronic devices.

This, to me, is the most important aspect in what makes e-lit, e-lit. It can't be fully experienced and understood outside of the digital medium.

It would be interesting to see how the current range of technology have added more perspectives from other places about the meanings of e-lit .

I think my biggest curiosity here is the variable nature of the word 'meaningful' - it says to me 'it must be moving, be changing, be something bigger, it is an experience' so seems directly mismatched against the real specifics of 'electronic device'. Others may not agree with my definition of 'meaningful' however, which is half the fun of trying to define something in the first place.

The historical context and generations of work references are fascinating. It implies that cataloguing previous works is almost archaeological in nature. This makes me think that the more popular and interlocked E-Lit becomes with technology, especially in places where the old definitions do not necessarily work as well as they used to, the more there will be to catalogue and showcase. Does this mean it is about storing stories, technology applications, experiences or all three?

I wonder if this distinction is changing as there are more and more US schools also starting to teach an research the field of digital humanities where digital means not only the digitised works but also born-digital materials (as notes also on Wikipedia)

Interesting to differentiate electronic literature as a literary from the meta language of the electronic literature as an academic field

It seems like this definition is more focused to the experience of the electronic literature, whereas the previous one was more based around the production. I like the notion that the experience is tightly connected to a literary device. In this regards important are the notions of literariness and the literary art. As even in e/lit there can be something which is a literary work and a literary work of art. It would be interesting to see if the differentiation between the two gets the same kind of notoriety as in 'traditional' literature

Does this then eliminate stories made by computers? The Policeman's Beard is Only Half Constructed was entirely written by a computer (among other stories, later). This definition would seem to disqualify it as electronic literature. If disqualified, what category does "traditional stories generated by computers" fall?

More precisely, I suppose, is why is "for the electronic medium" important to the definition? There are multiple stories that eventually become absolutely non-digital in the end, but I still think would qualify as e-lit. Take the Chooseatron or the Automatypewriter as off-hand things. They're electronic, but they can very much be experience in a meaningful way - in the end, both produce a story on a piece of paper, easily read and discussed later without any aid.

Yes. It's sort of amazing how old stories that were previously only produced with a printing press can be transferred electronically. Just yesterday I read Pride and Prejudice on my tablet. So does that mean Jane Austen is part of eLit? So many opinions flying everywhere.

This is an interesting avenue for consideration. The question of what is literary, of course, extends into solely print publications as well (and the discussion, for example, of genre fiction). In the case of electronic literature, the difference in the experience of the work adds a completely other dimension.

That's a solid definition. Obviously "literary works" may lead to a broader discussion about what exactly constitutes "literature". But that aside, it seems to cover the essence of what electronic literature is.

(I'm going to play the role of the student interrupting your video lectures for a sec.) Oh so, Electronic Literature is also an academic field?

this created more clarification for me than any other definition but that might be because I am using the reference point of books as a way to see this, which I am starting to realize may not be the best way to view e-lit.

In my experience, hypertext fiction was for a long time the catch-all term for any electronic literary text. And I agree! General acceptance (as seen in the N-Gram viewer) is likely reflecting writing beyond scholarly, "expert" studies of e-lit that gained its currency overtime. I also wonder, if this distinction continues outside of the e-lit writers and scholars community.

This is a great essay! To the extent that definitions of e-lit are predicated on how tractable the term is over time, it would seem we're destined for largely unreliable, ahistorical accounts of what it is. Walker Rettberg shows that although we can certainly count occurrences of overlapping terms across decades, unless we understand the shifting semantics underlying those metrics, we really haven't made much progress (e.g., her observation that early uses of "electronic literature" often denoted research literature published in electronic form, rather than born-digital creative works).

In this definition I've always been interested in thinking about the idea of "threads of practice" not just in terms of genre as it initially seems to be, but as aspects of the creation of works, their distribution, their consumption, and of course, their obsolescence.

"works with important literary aspects"

I found that to be an interesting phrase, specifically the use of the word important. Still delving into the definition, it is beginning to seem as if some of this literature could also be classified as digital art

Here we are on the last stop of our Definitions of E-Lit Tour. How does Brian Kim Stefans' idea of electronic literature differ from other definitions we've encountered?

When you're done here, return to our course on EdX and move on to the next activity.

This is a long scholarly essay! You don't have to read all of it (but you can). For this activity, scroll down to "The Words We Use to Describe the Field" section. What is the argument Jill Walker Rettberg is making in this section? What's at stake?

When you finish up here, you can visit the last site on our tour: http://openspace.sfmoma.org/2011/07/third-hand-plays-an-introduction-to-electronic-literature/.

Here is our second definition of e-lit. What is the context of this definition? Does it account for other perspectives?

After you finish up here, visit the next site: http://www.dichtung-digital.org/2012/41/walker-rettberg/walker-rettberg.htm