Developed - Revision history

Admin: Reverted edits by Tcc (talk) to last revision by Witchybitchy

2017-10-17T06:02:26Z

Reverted edits by Tcc (talk) to last revision by Witchybitchy

Tcc at 05:11, 17 October 2017

2017-10-17T05:11:36Z

Tcc at 03:59, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T03:59:54Z

Witchybitchy at 01:11, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T01:11:21Z

Tcc at 19:53, 5 October 2017

2017-10-05T19:53:34Z

Yl at 05:04, 5 October 2017

2017-10-05T05:04:05Z

Tcc: Created page with "The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature..."

2017-10-05T02:56:21Z

Created page with "The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature..."

New page

The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover meaning, reason, in purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to trly accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 17 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to [[specify]] what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me [[realize]] just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 17 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me [[realize]] just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to [[specify]] what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me [[realize]] just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, 10 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me [[realize]] just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 10 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate [[authority]] is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 5 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, in purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to ~~trly~~ accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, and purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to try and accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:04, 5 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover meaning, reason, in purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to trly accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.	+	The readings that stood out to me the most for the week were the first two: “The Library of Babel” and “Electronic Literature: What Is It?”. “Electronic Literature: What Is It?” was written very well, but it was odd reading about a subject that is so subjective in such an objective matter. Not to discredit Hayles in any way, but I think that perhaps the way she describes electronic literature comes off as a bit "cold." It's hard to specify what exactly I mean by this, but one way I can describe it is that, if I had read what she wrote having had no experience at all with E-lit, I'm not sure I would be as interested as I am having had the introduction presented by Prof. Snelson. No doubt, Hayles knows what she is talking about; but her position as an ultimate authority is a bit off-putting. As for “The Library of Babel”, well, to be frank; it blew my mind. It's crazy to me just how many possible combinations of words are out there, and that theoretically, anything that can or will be said might be found in the The Library of Babel. What also struck me is the librarians. They made me realize just how desperate human beings can become striving to discover [[meaning]], reason, in purpose in our lives. It is perhaps impossible for our minds to trly accept that anything might be without all three of those properties.