Literature Ergodic

Aarseth's overall point seems to be that the study of cybertext has lead people to discriminate or compare it to literature instead of realizing that it is instead, an extension of literature. While I agree with him somewhat on this topic, I do think that cybertexts should always be questioned on their relevance to literature, at least to discover in what way literature is evolving. It is no doubt that the codex and the cybertext are completely different mediums, yet similar enough to be considered by many, the same thing. However, Aarseth's argument can be complemented on the simple idea that whatever can be done in the codex form can be replicated in cybertext, yet the reverse is indeed impossible. Take his example of the Multi User Dungeon (MUD). Essentially a simplified form of D&D (which I have never played, but know of), creating this content in codex form would simply be impossible, as what defines its uniqueness is the fact that the content exists because of a multi-user base. Again, as Ong states, the codex turns the user inward, unable to create a social universe outside of his own mind while stuck in a book. Yet, whatever could be created within a structured codex could easily be thrown into a MUD, maybe not in a sensible way, but none the less, it could be posted along with whatever else occurs within the medium. Thus, the now old form of literature must be studied separately from the new form of cybertext, as they are not synonymous, yet their similarities force them to be linked always.

In his list of examples of cybertext, Aarseth mentions programming as a non-linear cybertext. As the digital age is still so young compared to the codex, creating the language of programming is quite non-linear on its own right. I was taking a class this summer on basic programming, where the instructor explained how every programmer has his own way of writing code, and that if he does not order the code in a way that enables the program to work, and is legible by other programmer's, when coming back at a later period to the program, other engineers most likely will not be able to decipher the structure. This isn't something that only occurs sometimes in programming, it seems to happen everywhere, with no homogeneous structure to unite digital text. This seems to be the only example of a text that cannot be universally understood because of its chaotic nature. As the technology expands over time, the language of computer code could become standardized, as many programs (especially films and games) utilize digital counterparts to mathematical algorithms that exist in the real world.