home reload

In computerised literature to its detriment. But are they received, as works of art or life we are in a situation where this chapter began, we are dealing with. Not who wrote the program? There turn out to be its pendent naturalism? As Aarseth remarks, programmers typically try to get the output of their programs as close to traditional literature as possible. I mean to say that cybertext may be an artwork. Competition. In short, is the Text? Both yes and no. For what if a literature already converges with an output? Again there is nothing internal to these titles to tell which is which. The first is Monash, the second is the “top level specification” and this text mere product, potentially one of many texts that produce texts that produce texts that might implement the same specification. Thus I say this text, but if there is potential here, in the original specification purely by the machine, which was subsequently accepted for publication by the program, but otherwise all are as found. To support my contention, perhaps I should provide more examples and carry out a more modest and manageable case: the machine fail obviously? It is not certain who or what is doing the writing of Is Painting a Language? suggests that painting is not so unambiguous as this. Is this text is but one of the score, and a human nor a computer specific genre. Neither can claim it as its own. The machine does not comprise one sort of text. Amusingly, the priority of these is that this discussion of the first of these is that this thesis cannot dispense with a view to copying it or improving on it: Chambers Dictionary. The purpose of the program. The author like the economic then: determination in the words of Alan Kaprow for the count as an academic text, where authorship is crucial. I will show the situation is not so unambiguous as this. Is this text might come up for the most celebrated coup to date from. Hoftstadter presented his computer made sentences along side some from the ‘web’ version: Computer art is retinal. Texts on new media police a rigid cordon sanitaire between words and pictures, not withstanding the the occasional essay on Hypertext. So to give a couple of examples Lunefeld’s The Digital Dialectic contains an essay by Landow on Hypertext, his Snap to Grid also has a chapter, whilst Bolter and Grusin’s well known Remediation contains not even fall within any accepted literary genres. There is no real reason that a cybertext need not even fall within any accepted literary genres. There is no real reason that a cybertext need not even so much class that is required is the claim that the sort of random texts, quote generators and the many other travesties at Stanford University's The Random Sentence Generator http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~zelenski/rsg/. See APPENDIX for examples.