Reflection

This portfolio means a lot to me, as I plan on teaching English and writing for a living. It shows how far I have come in my literary life during the past few months, from an improvement in analytic reading to an improvement in supporting my argument while varying sentence length and structure. The second writing project, which focuses on intertextuality and close reading, seemed to be the perfect choice for my revision as I believed I could better showcase my improvements in close reading with a paper that already focused on that skill.

After deciding to revise my Frankenstein paper, I reread what I had written, as well as the feedback I was given. I decided I would begin my reworking of the project by better analyzing the quotes I had chosen to support my argument, strengthening the point I was trying to make by expanding my analysis past a couple of sentences. During that first step to bettering my paper, I used my improved close reading skills to delve deeper into the meaning of the words in order to better connect the two texts being discussed. I discovered, after expanding my quotes, with another read-through that I had begun to develop a counter-argument in regards to the similarities that I had been highlighting throughout my paper. By developing that argument, my original one would become stronger due to the fact that an opposing viewpoint would now have been addressed.

When my revision was complete my argument was much stronger and my points were clearer; I found that everything that I had wanted to say during the first write-up of this paper was finally said, clearly and fully. Using everything I learned this semester, from close reading to developing counter-arguments, I made my paper the great one that it should have been from the start. I now know how to write a good paper, and understand that I couldn’t have written that great a paper earlier in the semester because my writing skills were not that developed. This entire semester I was developing the skills necessary to succeeding in my classes over the next three years.

Over the next few years here at Washington College, I want to continue to improve my writing and reading. While at the moment I don’t know where to go with my skills, as I ran down the list of things I wanted to improve on with my writing and have accomplished most of them, I am sure that the professors I will have in the future can assist me down the path I am on. I am positive that in my remaining years here that I can only improve my writing and reading abilities. This semester was only the beginning of a new stage of development in my literary life and, while it was a great start, there is still much to do before I can begin to be close to the end of development. I am grateful for the help I have received this semester.

The Rime of the Ancient Frankenstein (Revised)

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the main character, Victor Frankenstein, contends with continuous moral conflict that haunts him until his dying breath. This conflict is born out of Victor’s creation of the monster that the novel is known for, and revolves around Victor’s choices about whether or not to reveal his creation to the public. Victor struggles to decide between revealing his creation to the public and appearing to be insane, or letting the creature continue its murderous rampage. As a result of his choices, the deaths of his friends and family leave Victor with guilt for living when they died at the hands of his creation.

Similarly, in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” the mariner is forced to suffer with the guilt of his actions after his last voyage out at sea. He lives the rest of his life feeling guilty for killing the symbol of good luck that his crew thought would save them during their time of need. In destroying the symbol that held everyone’s hope, the mariner believes that he is responsible for the deaths of his crewmembers. Shelley created Victor in the image of the mariner, providing him with a similar conflict, in order to get a message across to her readers. The message she tries to get across focuses on how deeply our actions affect others, as shown by the similarities between the guilt that the mariner suffers for the death of his crew and Victor’s guilt over the death of his loved ones.

Shelley’s connection between her novel and Coleridge’s poem help to better show how one action can change the paths of many people. The poem acts as another example of the effect that actions can have on others, strengthening Shelley’s point.  For example, in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” the mariner shoots the albatross that the rest of his crew believes is a symbol from God. After the death of the albatross, everything changes for the worst:

Down dropped the breeze, the sails dropped down,

‘Twas sad as sad could be,

And we did speak only to break

The silence of the sea (Coleridge 107-110).

 

The problems that ensue after the mariner kills the albatross are believed to be linked to the mariner’s actions, and lead to the death of the rest of the crew. Similarly, in Shelley’s Frankenstein when Victor realizes his creation is hideous, he abandons it, causing it to enter the world with a heart full of hatred, and resulting in the deaths of everyone close to Victor. The abandonment of the creature and the consequences that follow are similar to the events that occur after the death of the albatross; the wind ceases to blow and the heat bears down, killing the mariner’s crew and leaving him with guilt. However, this does not immediately occur, as at first the silence of the sea isn’t so bad; it is only when the sun begins to bear down that the consequences of the mariner’s decisions become apparent. Victor on the other hand, immediately experiences guilt when Justine is killed for the murder of his younger brother, which was actually committed by his creation. After that initial guilt, everything settles down for a time and Victor is able to relax, as the mariner did when the sea first quieted. The similarities between the two scenarios can be seen by Shelley’s use of language after Victor abandons his creation:

The weather was fine: it was the middle of August, nearly two months after the death of Justine; that miserable epoch from which I dated all my woe. The weight upon my spirit was sensibly lightened as I plunged yet deeper in the ravine of Arve. (Shelley 89)

At first when the albatross has just been shot, the weather is still nice and the mariner only has to face the anger of his crewmates, due to his murder of the symbol they thought was a sign of safety from God. Similarly, after the first murder and the death of an innocent woman, Victor only has to deal with his guilt for creating the thing that started the trouble, but the weather is nice enough for him to momentarily forget his troubles, as the mariner did for a short time. However, the connection made at this point in the novel is only through the use of language to describe the weather, and not actual mention of the mariner, which occurs earlier in the text.

While the mariner is only officially mentioned in the text once, Shelley includes many similarities between the two characters throughout the course of the story, such as the thoughts they share regarding the consequences of their actions. The mariner is first mentioned in one of the letters that comes before Victor’s story actually begins, introducing the story as told by Robert Walton. In the letter Robert Walton is describing his sea voyage to his sister, telling her where his travels will take him and the hopes he has for the trip. “I am going to unexplored regions, to ‘the land of mist and snow;’ but I shall kill no albatross, therefore do not be alarmed for my safety, or if I should come back to you as worn and as woeful as the ‘Ancient Mariner?’” (Shelley 33).  The connections between the mariner and Victor begin as soon as the creature comes into existence, seen by the two characters sharing a thought about their guilt. “More miserable than man ever was before, why did I not sink into forgetfulness and rest?” (153). Victor feels extremely guilty about the deaths of the people he loves because the creature that he made was the cause of their deaths. He knows that his creature is responsible, and would rather that he died in their place because he created such a hideous thing—although he still feels a sense of pride for creating life. Victor’s speech is very similar to how Coleridge wrote it in the poem:

An orphan’s curse would drag to hell

A spirit on high;

But oh! More horrible than that

Is the curse in a dead man’s eye!

Seven days, and seven nights, I saw that curse

And yet I could not die (Coleridge 257-262).

 

The mariner experiences a moment during which he believes that there is nothing worse than the blank, yet hateful stare of a man whose death he feels responsible for. It is due to this belief that he, too, wishes he could die and be free from the weight of his guilt. While the two characters know that there have been people in worse situations that have died, both wish for their lives to end and are frustrated when they refuse to do so.

Further linking the two texts together is the guilt that both characters feel after the deaths that follow their actions. Both Victor and the mariner not only feel guilty for causing the deaths of the people close to them, but feel guilty for surviving when they died. In the poem, the mariner immediately understands the consequences of his actions. “And I had done an hellish thing And it would work ‘em woe: For all averred I had killed the bird That made the breeze to blow” (Coleridge 91-96). He quickly understands that by ending the life of the albatross he caused the breeze to stop, stranding the ship in the middle of the ocean. However, Victor does not consider what releasing his creation into the world will cause. “I could hardly believe that so great a fortune could have befallen me; but when I became assured that my enemy had indeed fled, I clapped my hands for joy, and ran down to Clerval” (Shelley 63). Victor’s lack of consideration for any kind of future consequences provides a slight separation between his character and that of the mariner. In creating this separation in character, Mary Shelley is making sure that the reader does not view them as exactly the same person; Victor is her creation and the mariner is simply a part of who he is. Victor has a similar crisis of conscience to the one experienced by the mariner, caused by the consequences of their actions. However, Mary Shelley added some key differences to make sure that the two characters could not be confused as being the same; she made Victor unaware of his wrongdoings while maintaining guilt over the deaths of friends and family.

While Victor and the mariner appear to be similar, their stories end very differently. The mariner originally blames himself for the deaths of his crew, believing that he survived because he is as disgusting as the “thousand thousand slimy things” (Coleridge 238) that live in the sea. However, he comes to learn that he is not to blame for their deaths and that all life, even the life of the sea snakes that he once thought to be so hideous, is beautiful. In contrast, Victor continues to blame himself for the deaths that occur in the wake of the creation that he believes is a monster that should no longer live. “Again do I vow vengeance; again do I devote thee, miserable fiend, to torture and death” (Shelley 175). He believes that the creation not only deserves to die, but should be forced to suffer pains much worse than the ones he experienced from the creature’s entire existence. Victor follows the “monster” to the ends of the Earth, only to become ill and die before he can end the miserable life that he created.

While the mariner is able to realize that his guilt is unnecessary, he has another important difference that separates him from Victor. Throughout the entire poem the mariner is aware that what he has done—killed the albatross—is wrong. However, Victor spends the story in denial that he has created anything that he shouldn’t have. He sees himself as a sort of god for most of the story, as he created life, and even though he finds his creation to be hideous, he still sees the creation itself as an accomplishment. His attempt at creating a second being, while he claims that he is doing so in order to protect his remaining friends and family, is an attempt to create a better being. The first attempt at creation provided him with something that was so hideous that he counted it as a failure. The mariner knew that killing the albatross was wrong, due to the fact that mariners are very superstitious people, but he did it anyway. Victor saw nothing wrong with creating life as if he was God, or a being with a similar power.

Both Victor and the mariner suffer through situations that result in death followed by guilt. While one character is able to accept that they are not to blame for the deaths that occurred, the other refuses to even entertain that notion. The characters may differ in the endings to their stories, but in the end they are only similar because Shelley needed to get across to her audience that more than one person is affected by a person’s actions. The similarities in their situations, as created by Shelley based on Coleridge’s poem, do their best in strengthening and translating Shelley’s message to the readers.

 

 

I solemnly swear that to the best of my ability I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code.

Works Cited

Smith, Johanna M. Frankenstein. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.

Wu, Duncan. “Samuel T. Coleridge.” Romanticism: An Anthology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994. 695-711. Print.

 

Writing Project #3: When Technology Meets Literature: The Fate of the Book

Technology has been changing since the beginning of time. While it is generally thought of as machinery, technology also includes language and how it is presented. Before stories were written down and bound into books, they were passed down orally from generation to generation. Today, stories have started to leave their binding in favor of a more electronic world. This transition has caused the fate of books to be called into question, mainly questioning whether computers will lead to the downfall of classically formatted books. While critics like Sven Birkerts believe that new technology will lead to books becoming extinct, others like Janet Murray believe that electronic, or hypertexts, such as The Invention of Hugo Cabret are simply a new form of literature that is not competing with classic literature in any way. While technology may be making its presence known with hypertexts, it will not bring about the end of books.

In his book, The Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts discusses his opinion of hypertexts and how they vastly differ from the classic style of books. Hypertexts are texts that are either electronic and allow readers to decide where the plot goes, or are bound like typical books but have more images than actual words. Birkerts mainly focuses on the problems with electronic interactive texts, finding them to have little connection with what he essentially refers to as “actual literature.” He believes that if the reader is controlling the story there is no actual purpose to the writer anymore.

As the print technology gained ground, however, all that changed. Fixity brought imprimatur. Verbal perfectability, style, and the idea of ownership followed. The words on the page, chiseled and refined by a single author could lay upon posterity. Think of the bold boasting in Shakespeare’s sonnets, born of the recognition that so long as words survived (were read) the subject and the poet would both enjoy a kind of afterlife. Everything hinged upon the artistic power of the work itself. (Birkerts 159)

The emphasis on the term “single author” suggests that Birkerts believes there should be one author—and one author only—per story. He finds that some hypertexts are written by multiple authors collaborating on one basic story but creating their own plot lines. It is due to the fact that the story is not written by one person that he thinks that the author’s role has been downgraded. However, there are still hypertexts that are written by one person. In the case of one author, even though the reader is controlling which direction the story goes, creating a unique reading experience, the author still has to write every single plot line that could possibly occur, creating each option open to readers. Unfortunately, Birkerts is unaware of the idea that with more plot lines the author has more work to do. He is far too occupied with his own ideas about how hypertexts can never achieve what he believes to be the true reading experience.

According to Sven Birkerts a true reading experience is when the author dominates their readers. This domination does not occur when one is reading a hypertext, and is the only point of reading in Birkerts’ opinion. “This ‘domination by the author’ has been, at least until now, the point of writing and reading” (163) (emphasis Birkerts’). Apparently there is no purpose to reading other than to be “dominated” by the writer, but what exactly does he mean when he uses the word “domination?” Birkerts defines domination as “The author masters the resources of language to create a vision that will engage and in some way overpower the reader” (163). Birkerts’ definition uses the word “overpower,” which suggests that there is a struggle between reader and author. This definition does not put reading in a favorable light, as no one truly wants to struggle with literature. However, Birkerts’ definition is not his own, being very similar to the one in the dictionary, which defines dominate as a verb meaning “to have commanding position or controlling power over” (Merriam-Webster). In our society domination is seen mainly as a violent and oppressive act, yet Birkerts believes that it is the only reason to read.  While I agree with his concept of entering the story’s world, I disagree with his word choice because it is too strong to suggest a positive aspect of reading. Dominate is a word that sounds as if the reader must engage in battle with the book and its author, only to lose and be forced into the world of the story. However, this is not how reading should be depicted because reading is not a forceful, violent experience but rather a peaceful transition from the real world into the author’s fictitious one. Although Birkerts disagrees, most hypertexts do very well in achieving this peaceful transition.

In Brian Selznick’s The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the author uses a combination of text and black and white illustrations to not only bring the book to life, but also to connect it to the silent films that it alludes to. Due to its format, in which there are more images than words, this book can be considered a hypertext. While the author also illustrates the book, there are some images that are taken from actual silent films, such as “Train Entering the Railroad Station.” Some collaboration was required for the silent film images to be added into the book. The collaboration that the author had with the filmmakers and companies that owned the films that the images are taken from also affects the plot, making it fit into the type of collaboration that Birkerts has such disdain for. The pictures in the book follow the movements of the main character, Hugo Cabret, allowing the author to spend more time deciding which parts of the story actually need to be written. However, using less words makes telling his story harder than it would be if it was written in the classical style. The author has decided which parts absolutely must be written, such as the dialogue, but now has to decide how to illustrate the parts that are still essential but not essential enough to be written, like parts of the story where Hugo is travelling through the station. By using the images to say to the reader what words can’t, the author is making it easier for the reader to make connections to silent films, as well as easily slip into Hugo’s world. Unlike Birkerts, Brian Selznick does not believe in dominating his readers.

Contrasting Birkerts’ belief that the book will cease to exist due to the uprising of computers is Janet Murray. In her book, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, she discusses all of the change that has come with increases in technology and the improvements that followed. When it comes to the future of books, Murray does not believe that it is the end of the world, even stating that computers are not competing with books. She believes that either form of literature is acceptable.

I am not among those who are eager for the death of the book, as I hope the present volume demonstrates. Nor do I fear it as an imminent event. The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention of that the printing press made possible. (Murray 8)

While Birkerts is certain that printed literature is coming to an end, Murray believes that it has simply sprouted a new branch that has become electronic reading. In her view books are in absolutely no danger from electronic literature because they are too similar to books, having been born from them.

While I agree with Murray’s belief that books are not going extinct, I would be devastated if they did cease to exist, as Birkerts believes. I have been an avid reader from a young age, have always loved feeling crisp pages between my fingers and therefore cannot truly imagine a world where printed books do not exist. Technology is raging, as seen clearly by increases in sales for electronic readers that can hold thousands of books. However, bookstores are still stocked, floor to ceiling, with hard- and paper- back books. While electronic literature is starting to be seen more often than before, printed books are just as present and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Birkerts may believe that technology is going to bring about the end of books, but technology has been changing for years and we still have them. Hypertexts and electronic readers are nothing to worry about when bookstores are still up and running with fully stocked shelves. As Murray states, electronic texts that have come from technological advancements are an extension of books and therefore are not an enemy to be feared. Technology will always change, but so long as there are people that love books more than electronic texts, books will stay the same.

I solemnly swear that all of the work here (unless cited) is my own.

-Justine Garrin

 

Works Cited

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber, 2006. Print.

Murray, Janet Horowitz. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Free, 1997. Print.

Selznick, Brian. The Invention of Hugo Cabret: A Novel in Words and Pictures. New York: Scholastic, 2007. Print.

What will happen to literature now that it can interact with the reader?

In his chapter entitled Hypertext, Sven Birkerts discusses his encounter with interactive literature. This encounter leads him to comment on the changes that literature has made in recent years. He believes that interactive texts delete the author, in the sense that the reader is controlling the story that someone else wrote. His thought is that if the reader controls the story, what purpose does the author actually serve? He believes that authors should be the only ones controlling the story because they have created it and it is a part of them. Birkerts is a traditional literary-enthusiast, someone who believes that a true reading experience is one in which the author “dominates” the reader.

While I agree with Birkerts’ idea of a true reading experience, I disagree with his word choice. The word “dominate” is a very strong term and suggests a struggle or even a battle with the literature. A true reading experience shouldn’t be a battle, resulting in the words overpowering the reader. The reader should simply be able to slip into the world of the book, become engrossed by the world that is created by the power of the words. There should not be any sort of struggle to achieve that kind of reading. I also don’t believe that interactive texts destroy the use or need for the author. In reality, the author controls every aspect of the interactive text because they create every possible direction for the story; the reader simply chooses one option for their literary experience.

Birkerts goes on about the use of the author and how those that write interactive texts aren’t actual writers. However, I believe that Birkerts has no authority to discuss what makes someone a writer or not, since he tried and failed to become one of the writers that he is talking about. His argument about how useless writers become when they write interactive texts suggests to me that perhaps he is jealous of those that can do something he can’t. While it is a childish approach, his constant degradation of creative writers, or those that don’t write based on facts, has a hint of jealousy in his words. Perhaps he didn’t consider the more expansive, or rather more difficult, role of the writer in interactive texts, but if you’re going to write a book about the downfall of the book and what it means for writers maybe you should consider a scenario in which the author has more to write, as opposed to less. The role of the author has increased with the increasing popularity of hypertexts, but apparently Birkerts has refused to see it that way.

After reading this chapter, I was extremely angry with Birkerts because he spent the entire chapter discussing something that is a huge part of my life: creative writing. In my mind he can’t discuss it if he doesn’t actually take part in it. In the end my main question is as follows: Is Birkerts jealous of those that can write creatively because it is an area that he failed to succeed in?

In which the future of the literary world is debated with Janet Murray, Justine, and (briefly)Sven Birkerts

In the introduction to Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck, the effects of technological advances on the future of the literary world are discussed. She believes that the fast paced world of technology actually improves the spread of languages across the world. In her eyes, if people want something bad enough, if they are truly motivated, they will eagerly learn it. This belief has led to more and more people learning international languages (including English for those who don’t speak it already) and, therefore, learning to read in new languages.

Murray’s beliefs about how the internet and other technological advances help with the spread of language and literature along with it conflicts with Sven Birkerts’ belief that language will erode without traditional books. Murray even states at one point, “The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible.” She thinks that computers are just an occurrence in the literary world and not the end-all that Birkerts believes is coming. It is because of her belief that computers aren’t going to cause the end of the book that Murray teaches a class to help people become acquainted with the new technology of writing.

 

In my opinion, books are not becoming extinct in the world because of computers and other technology. People will always buy books because there is an aesthetic appeal to them, an appeal that cannot be obtained through e-books and other computerized literature. I agree with Murray, in that it is not imminent that books will disappear, or even that computers will cause the disappearance of books. I think that language is not eroding, like Birkerts does, but changing with the technology of the time we live in. Technology will always change, but literature will essentially stay the same. By stay the same, I mean that the content and meaning of the text stay the same, but the form that the text takes will change with the technology and culture that exist and change with time. While Murray doesn’t mention him, I am aware of—and fully against—Birkerts argument that in changing the form the text comes in will destroy our language. I completely disagree because language itself would not erode if text moved from the page to the screen; language would change but not begin to disappear. In fact, language has already changed with the use of abbreviations in text messages on phones and slang in spoken language. Honestly, I believe that if language didn’t change our culture would come to a standstill and technology would have trouble moving forward since we borrow from other cultures. If we didn’t change our language we wouldn’t be able to understand the changes made to other languages, and then our technology wouldn’t improve as fast as it does today.

 

While reading Murray’s introduction, I wondered if her focus was purely literary, or simply all technology in general. Sure enough this was cleared up in her mention of her opinion of the computer in relation to the book, but I was momentarily confused because she was discussing other technologies.

The Medium is the Massage

In Marshall McLuhan’s book, The Medium is the Massage, the author uses pictures and words in order to convey his argument that the end of the written word is inevitable and should simply be dealt with, as we deal with all other changes. While McLuhan’s argument is seen throughout the book, there are two sections in particular that I believe fully encompass his main point.

McLuhan’s Argument

On page 48 he states that media has always been changing and the change from books to electronics should be no different:

“Until writing was invented, men lived in acoustic space: boundless, directionless, horizonless, in the dark of the mind, in the world of emotion, by primordial intuition, by terror. Speech is a social chart of this bog.

The goose quill put an end to talk. It abolished mystery; it gave architecture and towns; it brought roads and armies, bureaucracy. It was the basic metaphor with which the cycle of civilization began, the step from the dark into the light of the mind. The hand that filled the parchment page built a city”

Basically, McLuhan believes that the changes of media are inevitable; they have happened before and they will happen again. The key words for the beginning of this argument are “end” and “cycle” because they work to show that the changes in technology continually replace each other; each new technology has its moment in the spotlight, but every moment must eventually come to an end.

Later, on page 63 McLuhan continues his argument, by saying that our world is becoming faster paced and as a consequence our technology needs to reflect that:

“Electric circuitry profoundly involves men with one another. Information pours upon us, instantaneously and continuously. As soon as information is acquired, it is very rapidly replaced by still newer information. Our electrically-configured world has forced us to move from the habit of data classification to the mode of pattern recognition. We can no longer build serially, block-by-block, step-by-step, because instant communication insures that all factors of the environment and of experience coexist in a state of active interplay”

When information was only found in books and hard copies of newspapers there was time to sort all of the data that was entering our society. As technology improves information is able to come in faster, allowing people all over the world to be caught up in world events within minutes of it occurring. It is because of this improvement in the speed of technology that there is no longer any time to sort all of the data that is constantly coming in.

Birkerts vs. McLuhan

Sven Birkerts, who is in favor of resisting the change in technology from books to electronics, would most likely have some problems with accepting McLuhan’s view on the change in technology. Birkerts believes that the end of books is the end of language, while McLuhan believes that language will still exist but in a form that allows people to get information faster and in larger quantities. Also, while Birkerts is resisting the change and believes that the change doesn’t even need to occur, McLuhan thinks the change is inevitable and that we should not try to use yesterday’s technology for today’s tasks.

Final Thoughts

McLuhan’s format for his argument is slightly condescending, containing mostly pictures and very few words, leading me to wonder if he did that to prove that people nowadays don’t want to read all of the words that books typically contain and believe that they can get everything they want from pictures. In other words: Did he intend to be condescending with his argument?

The Invention of Hugo Cabret and what it all means

The Invention of Hugo Cabret, written and illustrated by Brian Selznick, tells the story of a young boy and his life in a train station after the death of his father and the disappearance of his uncle. The story, being a combination of text and illustrations, focuses on Hugo’s attempts to unravel the secrets behind the automaton that his father had worked on until the day he died. The narrator follows Hugo through the trials he faces while trying to repair the automaton, such as being caught stealing materials from the toymaker in the station and having to work for him. Once the automaton is repaired and most of its mystery has been revealed, Hugo’s troubles continue when he breaks his hand and is no longer able to continue his uncle’s work of keeping the many clocks of the train station in perfect condition. This injury puts Hugo in danger of being discovered by the Station Inspector, who would either arrest Hugo or send him to an orphanage. In the end, Hugo is able to solve the mysteries behind the automaton and the toy maker, who ends up being the magician/ filmmaker that created the automaton to begin with.

As the story is told mainly by pictures, I believe that the author wanted the audience to think of it as a movie. The text is kept very short and sparse, while the pictures are devoid of color and are pretty realistic, just like the silent movies from an earlier era. By doing this, the author intended to fully submerge the audience in the world of the book, just like the silent movies did back in their day. In the book the author references a silent movie in which a train pulls into a station. The movie was so realistic that the audience thought that the train was going to crash into them and they all ran from the theater in terror. That level of realism is exactly what I believe Selznick was attempting to convey to his audience and for the most part he achieved his goal. Most of the time while I was reading, I actually forgot that I was reading a book; it was only when there were large blocks of text that the illusion was momentarily shattered. Due to the fact that the toymaker ended up being a famous silent film maker, I believe that the author was attempting to create the same effects that the toymaker made in his films. Also, the pictures drawn by the automaton—once it has been completed—greatly resemble the pictures that fill the pages of the book.

Overall, I believe that the story is better conveyed the way the author created it, mainly because the plot fits the silent movie standards so perfectly—full of pictures so realistic you would believe they were real, no sound, and very little text—but also because I can’t imagine the story being told any better with just words. In addition to my opinion, I was taught in my Creative Writing class that a good book is one where you forget you are reading a book. While Selznick hypermediated this novel, it was a good book for making me forget that I was actually turning pages–I became fully immersed in the world of the book.