Category: Student Blogs

Taroko Gorge

, ,
0alloldusers

“Taroko Gorge” by Nick Monfort is an example of a poem generated by a computer, or combinatory poetics, as outlined in the Electronic Literature Organization’s list of existing electronic literature practices as part of their definition of E-lit. It fulfills John Cayley’s short definition of E-lit as it is “writing in networked and programmable media” and is primarily an example of writing in a programmable media. It also a good example of Stephanie Strickland’s definition of E-lit, which she says

“relies on code for its creation, preservation, and display: there is no way to experience a work of e-literature unless a computer is running it –reading it and perhaps also generating it,”

“Taroko Gorge” could not be read and would not exist without a computer generating it.
“Taroko Gorge” was originally created in Python and then recreated in Javascript so it could be viewed in a browser. The poem is created by first announcing in the program a series of lists of words, which are then returned randomly in an order determined by the type of list they are in and displayed in phrases that create a poem. “Taroko Gorge” is what N. Katherine Hayles would call “born digital” and each iteration of the poem is unique. Every instance of the webpage will return a different poem than the last. The piece is not only “not easily produced or consumed in print literary contexts” as Scott Rettberg describes in the reading, but it is impossible to produce or consume as print. One iteration of the poem could be printed and distributed as print, but the intention of the piece would be lost.
The piece is a straight forward example of combinatory poetics. Scott Rettberg describes combinatory poetics as programs that “access and present data… and then through algorithmic processes, modify or substitute the data.” “Taroko Gorge” uses Javascript create lists of data, words in the poem, and select and present them randomly to form a poem. This is a similar process to the recipe for a Dadaist poem Tristan Tzara describes, cutting words out of a newspaper and gluing them down randomly as you draw them from a mixed bag. Combinatory poetics uses computer programming languages to create Dadaist poems instantly.

Combinatory Poetics and Taroko Gorge

, ,
0alloldusers

While examining a few different versions of the Taroko Gorge works, I noticed that many shared the same source code or framework. Nick Monfort’s original Python program was used for each of the works that I examined. Some versions, such as Camel Tail by Sonny Rae, modified the code enough that it looks like a completely different program. Sonny used blocks of text as opposed to individual words, as they were inspired by and using lyrics written by the band Metallica as opposed to individual words. The disclaimer that usually precedes the code about the original author is missing, and the names of the variables have been changed. The end result is similar enough as to be included in the list of versions of Taroko Gorge, and it looks similar when it runs, but it is different enough as to make one look closer at the code to find the common threads.

The meaning of each of the works would, I assume, vary from author to author. Each author uses similar framework but different content to generate combinatory poetry that speaks to them. Rettberg described Taroko Gorge as “ambient” (47) then went on to hack the source code, replacing Monfort’s verbs and adjectives with his own. He chose language he described as “frenetic” (48) which changed the entire feel of the work from one evoking peaceful Taiwanese scenery to an urban metropolis bristling with energy. To this end, the effect of combinatory processes on the reader are many-fold and widely variable. The uncertainty of what’s coming next can be exciting or unsettling depending on the reader. What is exciting, though, is how people and computers are working together and using one another (intentionally or not) to create these new, electronic forms of poetry that are contrived and organic at the same time.

var blog = ‘words, writing, response, questions’

,
Katya Farinsky

 

Farinsky Blog Post 1: Combinatory Writing

Combinatory texts such as Taroko Gorge by Nick Monfort are similar in code construction to Mad Libs stories. There are defined variables which randomly propagate words from defined arrays in an established, looping sequence once the program executes. The structure, color, font, and text size are all dictated within the opening lines of code below the header. The code also includes lines modifying the names on the far right column.

The text is both meaningless, and meaningful to the right mindset. From a pure programming perspective this is simply a program executing lines of code as planed by the programmer. However, human nature often finds creativity and meaning in places apparently devoid of such on the surface. Depending on the iteration of the code the lines within the program sound mysterious and elevated in a manner expected from prose or other poetry.

There is certainly a strong argument for the original Taroko Gorge to be included as digital literature because of it’s unique output, code structure, and clear evolution from similar programs in the genre. It is harder for me to personally agree that the other struck-through versions are also “literature” because in any other setting the high levels of similarity would be considered plagiarism.

One of the modern miracles of computer science is the strong push for open-source projects- projects that allow others to see, use, and modify existing lines of code for a separate project often with the only requirement being a credit to the original creator. Momentous amounts of work have benefited from pooling the collective knowledge base this collaboration of creators has communally built. However, is simply changing the words within a defined variable array really unique work? Does adding an image, changing the color scheme, or the time between publishing lines make the hypothetical edition different enough to be considered a unique work from the original? Is the copying only adding noise or adding to the genre of digital literature?

Even if one only considers the original work worthy of the title: “literature”, does it make the copy-cats not worth archiving? Digital literature is unique that it is constantly evolving in a very traceable way. With the rise of the internet, and corresponding platforms, directed for creative literature historians have the opportunity to catalog very distinct steps in the creation, or ignoring of, genre conventions. We can look at a network of similar programs and see exactly how the source codes are the same or divergent. This gives rise to the question of how can we tell what is significant though which is an entirely new dilemma considering in print the origins of “traditional” literature are very limited due to time or disasters.

The idea of word substitution in print or online is not something new- but creators such as Nick Monfort clearly deserve credit for creating a program which emulates human poetics in a more, and more human sounding manner.

1/18 Combinatory Writing

jredman17

If I were to show someone the readings about Taroka Gorge without giving them context of how they were put together, they would probably get frustrated because they include realistic phrases that encourage them to keep reading but provide no meaning. The stories I looked at were made with JavaScript and used random variables to put together certain words to make grammatically correct phrases or sentences. The program is designed to do this, but it is not really telling a story. I could say the works are about Taroka Gorge, but they are really just words that somewhat relate to Gorge randomly put together. I agree with Rettberg when he says, “This sort of story, like the output of many text generators, invites the reader’s involvement not by providing an excess of detail but, instead, by proving the reader with a minimal sketch, with a great deal of interpretation space left for the reader to fill in” (Rettberg 42). I look at the phrases within these works as images to be used when thinking of my own story of Taroka Gorge or a place similar. I have never been to Taroka Gorge before, so thinking about these works in relation to another place helps me remember aspects of it I may have forgotten. This is the effect combinatory writing has on readers. It lets them apply it in whatever way they want rather than forcing them to understand it in a certain way set by the author. I still think there is more value in engaging with a story that has real construction, but ones like these provide an interesting alternative.

“Minimal outlines such as this can serve as provocations, engaging our imaginations with prompts to flesh out a richer storyworld than actually denoted by the text that appears on screen” (Rettberg 42).

Combinatory Poetics Blog

,
0alloldusers

Combinatory poetics is a form of writing that I’ve come across before but I never knew the name of. The foundation upon which it was built has a colorful cast, ranging from the seemingly paradoxical Dada group with the cut up technique, the surrealist with automatism, the Fluxus artists, etc. all helped shape combinatory writing.

Taroko Gorge serves as a representation of combinatory poetics. Taroko Gorge is a poetry generator created by Nick Montfort, as Retterberg explains in Electronic Literature, “It is a relatively simple script that produces an endlessly scrolling poem, cascading ceaselessly in the web browser until the reader closes the window in which it manifests.” (Retterberg 47)

Looking at the code, in the script section of Fred and George, by Flourish Klink, in the script section there are nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Now words aren’t completely chosen at random, there is a structure as shown in the actual poem. In the main sections of the poem, it starts with a noun, then it follows up with a verb, and then another noun. Now the words that are actually selected within the set variables are mostly random.

The picture below shows an example of certain parameters set within the poem generated to give a sense of coherence and structure.

These similar parameters can be seen the other variations as well, like in “The Dark Side of the Wall” by Bob Bonsall. The main difference lies in the fact that rather than the variables contain single words, Bonsall’s put entire sentences and questions within them. Outside of that main difference, the code is virtually the same as the other variations.

There is a basic meaning that can be taken from these poems, like for example “Fred and George” is incredibly sexual and this was intentional on the part of Flourish Klink. There are wizards and wands involved, I think it goes without saying that Flourish Klink really likes Harry Potter.

There is one point in the book that I believe is worth discussing as it relates to combinatory poetics within the digital sphere. On page 43, Rettberg discusses how combinatory work isn’t made to produce the greatest pieces of writing, but rather as a way to represent a “range of possibilites in interesting ways”.

“If a generative system only operates to demonstrate a concept while producing texts that can only be appreciated as output of a computer program but not as compelling language, in my view it fails as a work of electronic literature.” (Rettberg 43)”

When I looked at the various examples of Taroko Gorge I never viewed any of the poems as compelling in any way, I simply viewed them as demonstrations of a concept. Now maybe I’m simply blind to the beauty of combinatory poetics through the use of story and poetry generators but I don’t take any real meaning in the actual text. I certainly appreciate the technology, as it is incredibly impressive, but outside of that, theres nothing.

When I listen to a song like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” by Nirvana it isn’t just the words and the music alone that are compelling, it is the fact that the Kurt Cobain actually experienced those emotions. With each note and lyric you can feel the passion and emotion behind it all. When you’re a teenager or even an adult, you can relate with those emotions and connect with not just the song, but the artist behind it.

Lets say that a song generator creates a song that is just as powerful if not better than “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” Even if it was an objectively better song, I would still like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” more, and I would view the product created by the generator as a lesser product. I say this because a generator does not know what it is like to experience emotion, it doesn’t know what it is like to struggle, it doesn’t understand the frustrations of being a teenager and how that affects someone. Anything that it creates rings hollow because it can’t actually experience anything it describes.

Sources:

Electronic Literature by Scott Rettberg

“Taroko Gorge” by Nick Montfort

“Fred and George” by Flourish Klink

“The Dark Side of the Wall” by Bob Bonsall

 

 

“Taroko Gorge” Blog #1

,
0alloldusers

 

In looking at our assignment and Taroko Gorge’s poem I am struck with the similarity between it and the bots on Instagram and twitter. While it is different in one make an infinity scrolling poem the twitter bots post something new every day, but at its core they are both randomizing words within the confines/ parameters of the code and making poems that will never be the same. In Electronic Literature by Scott Rettberg he writes about how using technology changes how we create and what we create. In todays society we are ever more the consumer so is that due to technology or our own doing? While the effects impact humanity I as a user of technology must wonder if by looking at what these programs make, we will learn anything or if we will have a good laugh. Maybe in the future algorithms will be able to create novels and poetry but for now we can impute the variables and it will show us a little bit more about ourselves. Another example written about in Electronic Literature is when Scott is writing about Alan Turing, Christopher Strachey and the Mark I. The M.U.C love letters produced by the Mark I are rudimentary at best but that was because of the technology available at the time. Looking at the code used in the Mark I and the code used for Taroko Gorge’s poem they will be vastly different just because of the technology used but have the same result. Taroko is an infinity scrolling poem and the Mark I had that capability in its time. The abilities of Taroko Gorge’s poem are far better than the Mark I and while reading it I wonder if in time we will get to a point like Alan Turing was, where a machine can emulate and use a language so well that we cannot tell the difference.       

 

Source

Electronic Literature by Scott Rettberg

Taroko Gorge: https://nickm.com/taroko_gorge/

 

 

 

Taroko Gorge and Combinatory Poetics

, , , ,
0alloldusers


For the assignment this week, we were tasked with reading multiple variations of the poem “Taroko Gorge”. First, I took a look at some of the poems, and I noticed that they all had a very similar structure going on with them. After looking into the source code, I determined that it looked like each variation was different because of different key words that were replaced by each author of the poem. I noticed pretty early on into the reading this week of “Electronic Literature” by Scott Rettberg, that kinetic poetry was mentioned as a genre of Electronic Literature. After looking a little more into kinetic poetry, I discovered that it was essentially a form of combinatory poetics. It takes random words out of a piece of text, and they will all be floating around each other. Eventually the words will be drawn towards each other, forming different phrases.

Although the poem has seemingly infinite different versions that could be created through just changing the key words, the part thats most interesting to me is that no matter what words you change in it, the basic structure of the poem will always stay the same. Such as the first sentence of the poem will always be “*Key Word* *Key word*s the *Key Word*”. I also noticed while looking at the poems, that it doesn’t let you scroll back up to view a certain part of the poem, like it’s forcing you to live in the moment of the poem and focus on what’s appearing in front of you while it infinitely continues on. Since the poem is also randomized, once something disappears it’s very unlikely you’ll see it again even through replaying the same poem.

“Taroko Gorge” is very similar to a dadaist poem, which are created from other types of literature, but when cut into pieces and mixed up, they create something different than originally intended. The difference is, you can reread a dadaist poem as much as you like and take as much time as you like with it, which isn’t true with “Taroko Gorge” poems. Hit refresh and even with the same words, everything will be completely different again. As a reader this makes every line feel even more important, since you’ll never be able to read it again. On page 23 of Electronic Literature, Rettburg shares a quote from Manovich that perfectly sums up Taroko Gorge and Combinatory Poetics,

“a new media object is not something fixed once and for all, but something that can exist in different, potentially infinite versions”(23, Electronic Literature)

Sources:

Electronic Literature by Scott Rettberg

Taroko Gorge: https://nickm.com/taroko_gorge/

Dylan Niehaus – Taroko Gorge

Dylan

Taroko Gorge is a piece of electronic literature that generates a never-ending series of poems from a word bank that the author created through Python script. This strategy of creating code that generates random phrases that make some sort of sense is known as combinatory writing. The original version of Taroko Gorge focuses on natural things. Here is an example of generated phrases from when I opened Taroko Gorge –

The crags sweep the rocks.
Rocks hold.
Brows frame the cove.

translate the rough sinuous arched cool —

Stone commands the shape.
Veins hum.
Brows linger.
Stones frame the vein.

shade the encompassing straight cool —

The word choices of Taroko Gorge create poems that Scott Rettberg describes as “calm, almost zen-like poetry”. (Electronic Literature, p. 47). This is achieved by writing code that generates poems that follow a specific pattern. The poems seem to follow a pattern like this:

(noun 1) (verb) the (noun 2)
(noun 3) (verb)
(noun 4) (verb) the (noun 5)

(verb) the (adjective 1) (adjective 2) (noun)

Taroko Gorge is unique because several other authors have borrowed the code and inserted their own bank of nouns, verbs, and adjectives to create their own randomly generated poems with a unique feel for each. Scott Rettberg, the author of our class textbook Electronic Literature, created his own version of this poem entitled “Tokyo Garage”. The word bank that Rettberg has created is entirely different from that of the original poem by Nick Monfort. While the original Taroko Gorge has themes of zen and nature, Rettburg’s take has a more modern, dystopian, and kind of edgy feel to it. Another version of Taroko Gorge that caught my attention is Toy Garbage by Talan Memmott. Talan’s word bank consists of popular toys for nouns, with adjectives and verbs that are dirty and/or unpleasant, resulting in poems that describe popular toys doing things that would not be expected of them. This strategy of combinatory writing catches my attention in a unique way. Instead of just thinking about what the writing means, I think more about what goes into the creation of the writing. When I am aware that the poems are generated randomly- it adds a new level of unique interpretation to the poems. I put in an extra effort to make sense of things when I know that the writing is being created on the spot by a script.

Blog 1: Taroko Gorge

Christine

Before we begin, I would like to say that this type of reading is not my strong suit. What others may be able to comprehend, I will get stuck on or take a completely different route. After trying my best to read and absorb the knowledge from the first two chapters of Rettberg’s book, Electronic Literature, I began to see some connections between the book and Nick Montfort’s Taroko Gorge. As you may have noticed, the poem is very long and written with sentences that are honestly are worded in such a way that it makes my brain have to take five over and over again. So for my first “reading” of it I just observed its structure. The poem has this pattern where first it writes 2-3 lines that are describing something (such as a river or a forest). Then the poem inputs a space and writes something I would like to call an “action line”, a line that tells the reader that something is going on by using words such as “stamp”, “translate” and “enter” at the beginning of the sentence. We can see these traits in Stuart Mouthlrop’s poem Mock Tin Front. I believe both of these works were authored in a simple and interchangeable way. In Montfort’s, the author is having the reader create a forest. This is done by repetition of keywords such as “stone(s)”, “cove”, “rippling”, “monkeys”, etc as the text itself flows up the page as if it was a continuous flow of water. We see the same flow in Mouthlrop’s poem only this time the poem isn’t describing a forest. We see words such as ” instantiate”, “circuit boards”, “engines”, and “generate” as the text disappears at the top of the page. While the text still has that same flow the reader reads the poem a bit differently because of those keywords. Reading it over our mental depiction of the last poem’s forest slowly transforms into some sort of a machine. These transformations causes the reader to go from feeling calmed and relax to a more alert state of mind. With this in mind I believe these poems were both created in a similar fashion given the information that we have here. The poems were designed in the simplest way to loop but with a variation based on a set of keywords and a format that was determined by the author.

Introduction

Joel Clapp

I’m 28 years old, returning to school to study digital media.
I’ve been a radio DJ for nearly 5 years and like to dabble with audio and video editing. I like to make weird videos and weird art. I’m trying my hand now making weird games.