One critic of Murray’s book complains that “her utopianism colors all her arguments in this volume, leading her to ignore or play down the more disturbing consequences of technology while unabashedly embracing its possibilities.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
Janet Murray contends a bard will use cyberspace to display literary genius as Shakespeare, Joyce and Dickens used print. Her logic is persuasive, she views cyberspace today as the precursor of a fully realized medium. She considers the creation of games, avatars, computer pets, multi-user dungeons and live action role playing as steps in the development of tools for the cyberspace bard. These tools for the future Shakespeare are still primitive and inordinately complex and expensive to develop.
Janet Murray does not ‘ignore or play down the disturbing consequences of technology’. She mentions some of the dangers such as pornography and violence and sites advocating causes she is opposed to. On the other hand, there is a grain of truth in the critic’s statement about Janet Murray’s utopianism. Murray’s strong advocacy for the use of computer technology for literary pursuits leaves the impression she views this misuse as merely an aberration that will not overwhelm the medium. Furthermore, she does not address the fact that cyberspace is filled with trash and trivia while the world waits for that genius to appear.
Murray assigns to the computer four essential properties: procedural, participatory, spatial, and encyclopedic. The first two properties are concerned with cyberspace as interactive. The last two are concerned with cyberspace as immersive. Interactivity appears to be the greatest barrier in cyberspace for the display of literary genius. Murray’s vision of interactive literature does not present a convincing medium for genius. Genius is a display of individuality. Interactivity would dilute the display of genius since the ‘reader’ participates in creating the work of art. The properties of cyberspace make it a playground for the display of cleverness but true literature implies more than cleverness. The absence of a ‘satisfyingly tragic story’ (175) that Murray observes is evidence of the difficulty of producing a true literature in cyberspace.
So far, literary and artistic creators have used relatively simple media and tools. In a sense, the mind of genius dominates the tool. The computer is a tool that is enormously rich with possibilities but it is such a complex and expensive tool that it is likely to overwhelm artistic and literary freedom. A blank page leaves everything to the imagination. There is no constraint and the literary genius is free to flourish. When a medium constrains, the genius may be able to dominate and use the constraint. A sonnet’s fourteen lines and rhyme scheme are limiting but Shakespeare reveled in the limitations. Similarly a blank computer screen, does not constrain the imagination. A screen filled with alternatives such as ‘frames’ limits the range of possibilities and the imagination. Software program that offers choices but not freedom are limiting. Murray thinks genius will break this barrier of limitations but it will take not only literary genius but technical expertise.
A room of computer users contains as much vigor and vitality as a medieval scriptorium. The apparent cleverness and the vast range of possibilities can fascinate and the immersion of the reader/user is obvious. Murray has little to say about the passivity, inactivity and lack of freedom that involvement with so called interactive software fosters and encourages. There is danger in immersion, i.e., contact with reality can be avoided. Interaction with the computer can often be a substitute for interaction with less predictable humans. Furthermore, interactivity with a computer can be deceptive and banal. ELIZA communicates but the communication is meaningless.
Regardless of her Utopianism or lack thereof, Murray’s vision of Hamlet on the Holodeck may not be the future of literature but could be the future for less imaginative writing. The multiform story describing a single situation is ideal for presenting various points of view. The use of ‘frames’ can bring a rich variety of material to the computer page. As Murray points out, the computer could be useful for creating soap operas, westerns, detective stories and other formulaic output. As an educational tool, possibilities abound for the use of the computer; for teaching languages, psychotherapy and even history.