First, I’d like to respond to ekimbell’s comment about Orson Whales. I agree that although Orson Whales is unchanging, it does have an element of randomness in the sense that it can be interpreted in several different ways. If the same holds true for “old media,” however, in what ways is Orson Whales considered new media? Does it really just go back to the rather dull definition of new media as cultural objects that make use of digital technologies? I don’t think there’s a clear-cut answer here, but I will take a stab at another definition. It seems to me that new media is a amalgamation of several different media forms. For instance, Orson Whales can be considered literature, art, music, all of the above or a combination of these things. New media challenges our ideas about text, as well as the ways in which we experience and thus interpret text. We read Moby Dick and think about the several different meanings it can possess. As for Orson Whales, we’re not really sure how to read it or if we can even read it at all. Do we read Orson Whales? Do we watch Orson Whales? Or do we listen to Orson Whales? This is what I mean when I say new media challenges the way we experience and interpret text.
In terms of representational meaning, Neil Hennessey’s JABBER: The Jabberwocky Engine is pretty much what it looks like. In short, it’s a bunch of letters that when bonded together, form “nonsense words.” According to Hennessey, “JABBER realises a linguistic chemistry with letters as atoms and words as molecules.” In this way, Hennessey challenges our preconceived notions about language and text and how we interpret them. After all, you usually don’t think about chemistry when talking about letters and words. At face value, JABBER is just like the game of Boggle: You put certain letters together to form certain words. The irony in JABBER, however, is that although the bonds between letters are determined by the likelihood that they would appear alongside each other in the English dictionary, the words those letters form are mere gibberish. This is where evocative meaning comes into play. Could Hennessey be commenting on the arbitrariness of the English language? Well, he’s definitely underlining the concepts of letters and words, concepts that we overlook on a day-to-day basis. But who determines which combinations of letters constitute a word? We are all guilty of throwing our words around or talking gibberish, if you will. As a result, others can misconstrue our intended meanings. Although the nonsense words in JABBER and the gibberish we speak have no true meanings to outsiders, they still have some meaning to us. In Electronic Literature, Katherine Hayles asks, “Is literary quality possible in digital media or is electronic literature demonstrably inferior to the print canon?” (2). I think Hennessey prompts his audience to ask a similar question. JABBER just produces nonsense words, but isn’t there more to it? After all, why are we studying it in the first place?