Week 7- Stir Fry is one of my favorite home meals

Immediately I was intrigued to read “Stir Fry Texts” because one of my favorite home meals is the stir fry my Dad makes. Well, I can honestly say, this stir fry does not equate to the satisfaction I get from my Dad’s stir fry.

The one thing I really don’t like about digital literature is the same thing I love about it: there are no instructions. When launching stir fry I immediately began looking for a set of instructions for what to click, and what to read, but instead there is just menu bar with options (hyperlinks) to different parts of a text. I hate this because it confuses me. But, I love it because I have always loved to solve puzzles, and in a way, digital literature and “Stir Fry Texts” are like puzzles to me.

In reference to the section, “Blue Hyacinth”, it really fascinated me how the story would change if you hovered over different words in a sentence. Digital literature has always intrigued me with its ability to have multiple meanings in one story, that usually all connect in some way. I have yet too figure out what the meaning is in “Stir Fry Texts”, but I can infer that the many different versions of the story (the ones that change when you hover over it) can be like ingredients in the stir fry, each ingredient (or different story), make up the main dish (or meaning). Without one ingredient, the whole piece of a puzzle doesn’t fit.

I plan to keep on rereading “Stir Fry Texts” in order to decode what all these ingredients are trying to explain.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Week 7- Stir Fry is one of my favorite home meals

  1. I agree with your concept of the variety of poems in “stiff fry” of how each piece of the poem is, in a sense, an ingredient to the overall stir-fry, or meaning. I didn’t think of the poems to literally be in comparison to a stir-fry but it makes sense the way you describe it. I thought of each different shade of grey as a piece to the overall meaning of the poem, and although it was difficult to read it sort of worked out that way. And even at times I explained that one shade of grey will match with another shade of grey. I think personally it’s all up to interpretation, especially with electronic literature, and after you read more in-depth of the stir-fry text your explanation will be one a many people’s explanations. You stated that you have a love-hate relationship with how difficult it is to read the texts; I would say I have a love-hate relationship with the amount of interpretations that are available in all of literature. The fact that there is not one clear interpretation frustrates me, and I believe that is the perfectionist in me, but I also love how if someone is able to back their interpretation up, there’s no right or wrong about their interpretation, it’s just valid.

    Like

    1. I love stir-fry as well! I can identify with your frustration with digital literature. It is difficult to figure out what to do without a set of instructions. However, this also gives you the freedom to figure out your own path through the literature. Digital literature is both fascinating and frustrating for me. The multiple meanings throughout the literature are very complex to try to figure out. These kinds of digital literature leave room for your imagination to come up with very different interpretations. I did not enjoy stir-fry as much as you did I think. I found it difficult to know what to focus on. I do not enjoy digital literature like this that much because everything comes at me way too quickly and I find it to be overwhelming.

      Like

  2. Stir Fry was a very ambiguous and confusing text to read. I do agree with you with wanting to have some sort of instructions in the digital literature. It helps with giving me a place to start. When I opened up Stir Fry I also did not really know where to start so I started with the top and went down. Because Stir Fry can have many different meanings, there is no one way to read this text and it could have an infinite number of meanings, however, it all depends on who is reading it and how they are feeling when they are reading it. When I read “Blue Hyancith” I read it more as a story and it had a different meaning to me than it probably had to you. It all depended on what I changed. One thing that I did not completely agree with was how much you relate Stir Fry to an actual Stir Fry. Although it has a relation because it has the ability to be mixed up, I do not think that the text should be directly compared to a Stir Fry. I took it more as a figurative thing. Overall we did have a similar approach to the text though and I feel like I have similar feeling towards the text as you do as well.

    Like

  3. You really captured my main pro and con of digital literature, the lack of instruction, but i think for me it more a con. In my blog post I discussed that I think society is less inclined to gravitate toward the new digital literature simply because we do not have the attention span for it. Like Katharine Hayes discussed the generations are becoming more hyper attentive, struggling to engage in deep attention. I believe, like you, many people will be confused but too the point in which it is not intriguing anymore and they would rather give up.
    Interestingly though, you talk about how the digital text has many meanings that could be extracted which is similar to novels but I think novels are what you decide them to be. You could virtually read a novel and not get anything of it but just a story or you can read it and get 10 different life lessons from it but it is all in what you choose to receive which is why I think society would fall back into reading physical books before digital literature because though they both offer multiple meanings physical copies allow the reader to decide if they want that experience or not whereas digital literature forces you to indulge in the meanings.
    Strangely this is the opposite of what many think of hyper and deep attention. Many think that books are more deep attention while digital literature is more appealing to those who are more hyper attentive. I believe this is the case on the surface of each of these but beneath they are opposites.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s