Jabberywocky and Its Linguistic Implications

Neil Hennessey’s Jabberwocky Engine serves as a rather fascinating manner of illustrating the unspoken ability to decide what words are grammatical within a language and which words fall short. Native English speakers can instantly decide if a word is grammatical but cannot, for the most part, explain exactly why certain letter combinations work or conflict. Linguistically speaking, words with consonant combinations that are too difficult for English pronunciation simply don’t hold significance as “real” words and, in the case of Jabber, explode. The floating green and blue words, by representing plausible combinations, convey the subconscious ability to pick out what “sounds” right despite having never seen them before. In rationalizing what works and what doesn’t, Jabber effectively evokes the unnoticed skill of brining up a veritable consonant chart that outlines why it is so difficult, for native English speakers, to pronounce sounds that would require a coronal nasal sound followed by a lateral coronal sound (for example the “n” and “l” in “nlad”). In this case, the speaker identifies that “n” and “l” are too similar in where they are articulated and that English requires a buffer, usually created by inserting a vowel.

Though Jabber appears to be a fun and creative toy, it truly exemplifies how a native English speaker’s brain works. Even when creating nonsense words, certain rules must be followed. Just as in the original Jabberwocky, not all parts of speech could be replaced. For inferred meaning of the nonsense words to take place, articles and prepositions had to remain constant. This idea of a set framework applies to individual words as well. So long as one remains within certain perameters, one can conjure up any word wished; however, creativity halts when the words are no longer nonsense and instead become utterly incomprehensible. It is due to our imprinted and hidden knowledge of our native language that we can, with absolute resolution, say whether a word can exist, and Neil Hennessey’s engine shows exactly that.

Jabberwocky as art

On the surface Jabberwocky seems quite meaningless; it is literally a machine that generates jibberish. As someone who does not have the technical saavy to make the software needed to produce such a machine, I can appreciate the technical know-how involved. To create this generator involves quite a lot of rules and possibilitiesin the encryption, but the outcome is meaningless. The words in the output are nonsensical and useless, and although a few real words are mixed in, a reasonable person would find this generator random and stupid. Looking deeper at the representational meaning, I see how this could be seen as art. In this new, “textual media” forum, I see the Jabberwocky as a piece that could be seen in an art exhibit at a museum. Having read the biography of the creator, I realize that he sees himself as an artist in this new realm and his productions as pieces of art. Just as many pieces of “traditional” art can leave many confused, in the abstract the meanings of the piece can be endless.
This brings me to the evocative meaning; I don’t see any larger politcal statement being made, but simply a playfulness formatted in a sophisticated way. I imagine young children, who are far more computer literate than I was at their age, use the output from Jabberwocky as a code for a secret language. Perhaps Jabberwocky is a statement on the state of society as a whole, and its future direction. If kids resort to a computer generated machine to come up with a secret language, what does that say about their level of imagination? Sure they are well versed enough in computers to find and use the Jabberwocky, but it certainly takes the fun out of sitting around with your siblings and friends, and acting silly and goofy while making up words.

Blog #1 Evocative and Representational Meaning in Jabber

With Jabber, the representational meaning is obvious; this is an engine that signifies the malleability of the English language by using physics to form random letters into strings of nonsense (and less often, real) words that could potentially (read: phonically) see regular use as a member of the language.  This word engine speaks to the random and often quizzical nature of our language, as well as exhibiting a type of chemistry, where certain fragments can connect to form a plausible string, while others will disintegrate after a few moments.

What Jabber says evocatively, however, is less concrete.  It seems to raise questions about how our language is added to or amended, as when literary characters become adjectives or ideas based on their written personae.  Jabber also seems to play on the evolution of language itself, as with slang or colloquialisms we begin to hear and read more and more words that don’t exactly make any sense within their context; how can 30 inch rims be “ballin'” or new sneakers be “fresh” or “dope”.  While Jabber affirms this sort of nonsensical usage by providing an engine through which strange words can be formed and documented, it also hinders its own evolution by the creator imposed algorithms that make certain strings of letters impossible to form.

While some form of regulations is necessary, so that all of the letters don’t simply clash together and form some ultimate nonsensical language pangaea, to truly push the evolution of language you need to relax some of the phonetic and pronunciational guidelines.  While this might be analogous to expecting a bear to grow wings, i’m of the opinion that the English language has always been about nonsense rules and complexity, so why not throw in a few more. 

“X” before “D” and “Z” after “K”, let the Jabber engine lead the way.

Blog #1 Orson Whales

Orson Whales is fairly apparent in its use of multiple media outlets to formulate a representational message. The connection between each media type is held in the popular nineteenth century novel Moby Dick. While the author, Alex Itin, uses the pages of the novel as a backdrop, he also uses another popular form of work connected with this context, a Led Zeplin song with the same title. With the combination of these two forms of media and his own artistic handiwork, Itin tells a tale in which anyone with some sort of cultural knowledge of Moby Dick would be able to correlate. These different artistic forms combine together for a both visual and auditory stimulation of Ahab’s hunt for the great white whale.

The multitude of media outlets are also used to form a more evocative meaning of the text. I believe my long and tiring studies of this novel in previous English courses has led me to formulate an evocative meaning that might be unseen to those that haven’t studied the novel. Itin uses these media forms to interpret the novel from, as it seems to me, Ahab’s own point of view. The pace at which the pages turn and the beat of the song flow together to stress each other while the artistic imagery and the words spoken to the song tend to mimic each other in tone as well. While with the first viewing in class I found myself more in awe over anything else at the way in which these media forms were drawn together, a second viewing gave me a greater sense of connection between the literal and physicalness of the media and its connection with this more interpretive meaning. The overall combination evoked a feeling of urgency, chaos, and a sort of more subtle loneliness. These evocative feelings I believe are meant to portray captain Ahab’s own emotions and flaws as a sailor. The images and sounds help bring to life the inner workings of Captain Ahab’s tragedy as well as provide us with a stimulating mixture of art and media.

Representational vs. Evocative Meaning: Firefly

The textual media example that stuck out to me the most in class was the Firefly example. While Orsen Whale’s piece had sound, and Jabber had an unknown and exciting mystique, Firefly was interactive. This involvement peaked my interest the most, and will be used in to explain the differing dynamic between the representational meaning and the evocative meaning.

Upon first click, the representational meaning draws us, as readers, into Firefly. We are given a poem with 6 different stanzas, each falling on a new page, with a different angled picture of the same memorial as a background. Within each stanza there are 5 lines, and each line is 6 options deep. This allows us to be interactive in that there are thousands and thousands of possible different line choices. Deena Larson has written (in an order that continuously makes sense! ) 180 lines (6 pages x 5 lines/page x 6 lines/line=180) that create so many different themes and endings to the poem. In playing with these line choice combinations, we are able to create a new meaning to Firefly.

The evocative meaning that catches our attention is that each line reads so full of meaning, yet is several words long, and leaves each stanza at one full sentence. Deena Larsen has created a poem that can bring its readers to differing thought process and memories in the simple, yet powerful lines she has written and created. I remember in class I thought Firefly had a lot of meaning even before Professor Sample told us “click on the lines”. Once we had discovered this, the poem had whole new meanings and brought out new feelings, emotions and memories.

I think that Firefly is a great learning example for a textual meaning class because is simple, yet thoughtful and indepth. With so many line choices, a poem that is about death can be read as a poem with hope and love.

Blog 1: click.

My first instinct when I opened the Firefly site, as with the Jabber site, was to just click. My natural instinct in any site like this is to click, explore, and discover as much as I can without actually reading and/or following the instructions. In all honesty, Firefly was kind of boring and I think it’s due to the fact that requires less thought. Jabber possessed more of an everlasting entertainment value even though less clicking was required. The reason behind the process was more complex and it did require some knowledge of the system to understand what was happening. Firefly was boring because it was more self-explanatory and there weren’t as many things flying around the page.

The representational meaning behind Firefly was to provide a text that reads like a create-your-own-story book. It shows us a poem with 5 lines per page and a background picture of a memorial is provided – a different picture/view on each page. Each of these lines is able to switch to another line, once clicked on. It gives us options and depending on the line you switch, you’ll create a different part of the story, which may also mean a different end product.

The evocative meaning behind Firefly was created through the nostaligic feel of the style of text. I know that one person in class mentioned that it reminded her of when she or her children read those type of books when they were younger. Also, this style of changing one part of a work, which leads to a potentially completly different ending is relevant to our everyday life.  This meaning that if we were to chose to drive versus ride our bike to school could, it be the deciding factor of our fate. One slip of another driver or the drivee/biker could evolve into a fatal crash ending one person or many people’s lives. Sure, that’s an extreme example, but in reality, one wrong, unanticipated, or irrational thought by any party in a situation could change your life.

Blog 1

The jabberwocky engine presents the most compelling relationship between representational and evocative meaning, due in part to the seemingly limitless combinations of nonsensical words it can string together, and to the inherent incoherence of the English language’s own phonetic rules trying to make sense of these random collisions.

Ostensibly, JABBER entertains with the nonsense it vomits out, demonstrating English phonetics in an energetic and highly repeatable way.  But certain implications about language start to surface as the random words start to just barely resemble something you might imagine saying, after violently stubbing your toe or mumbled at the edge of sleep.  We encounter the idea that at one time a bunch of glorified apes had to come together to think of a word for “dog” or “elephant” or “banana,” and that however nonsensical the words produced by JABBER look, they’re pretty fun to say.

Why “Orson Whales” Is Not Plagarism

“Orson Whales” has very little literal, or representational meaning that is drawn from its actual basis, “Moby Dick.” Its story is told completely through the original drawings which are displayed over the actual book’s text and the commentary by Orson Welles. While I’ve never read the actual book, the animation seems to tell the story itself. Even Welles’ commentary is limited to highlighting certain aspects of the cartoon, rather than delivering a coherent narrative. He plays much the same role as the Led Zepplin song – supporting the story rather than narrating it.

This support role is exactly where Welles, Led Zepplin, and the text itself are most important. They make the background in which the cartoon itself can be expressed. The text acts as a visual background, while the song and commentary act as a sonic boon to punctuate strong moments of the animation. Rather than taking entire sections of the book from Welles’ narration, Alex Itin selects short phrases that coincide with the action, and even foregoes the commentary or the song in large parts. This is all present to establish the various evocative messages of the entire video – greed, lust and ambition all seem to lead to death at some point or another, and they are punctuated by appropriate sound samples of commentary and music.

None of that is any different from what all of us do everytime we write papers. We take from movies, music and books to make a basis for the point we want to make, or even as a justification for that point. What Alex Itin does is take Moby Dick and Orson Welles, and use them as a basis for an entirely different form of expression. He never passes their work off as his; he even cites them as the sources for his new work. We all gain insight from everything around us to help form our opinions and expression, Alex Itin just narrows his scope.

Jabberwocky: Words and Meaning

Although it has been reiterated several times already, I will attempt to define the representational meaning of Neil Hennessy’s JABBER. The Jabberwocky Engine generates a collection of letters from the English alphabet which float seemingly aimlessly across a white screen. Over time, these black letters collide in order to create blue word fragments (some of which are real words, some are not) or red “garbage” words. Then, two word fragments combine to create green “nonsense” words. Despite the fact that the green words do not exist in the English dictionary, Hennessy is, in essence, using the medium of language as a figurative playground by randomly combining letters and word fragments that sound, at varying degrees, as though they could plausibly function as actual words. He deposes the meanings of words and breaks free from the establishment of language as it is manifested in our cultural consciousness.

The user, “scarterb,” brought up the interesting idea that Hennessy could be “commenting on the arbitrariness of the English language.” Immediately, it occurred to me that the words currently in the repertoire of my vocabulary all sound, in some way, like what it is to which they refer. I realize that this is an abstract idea and may be difficult for me to articulate well. I will try my best…

I am not sure if others share similar experiences, but I feel that words have a tendency to correspond with their intended meanings—perhaps due to masculine or feminine undertones in a word or, say, because of certain emphases on the vowels and consonants in a word. For example, the word “blossom” (as it relates to a flower opening) sounds (at least, to me) exactly like its meaning, whereas the verb “execute” sounds very severe and harsh—the opposite of the implications of a flower blossoming. “Shatter” also seems to harmonize with its intended meaning in that the pronunciation of the two ‘t’s sound almost like an object breaking. Hennessy may be toying with the notion of words and their common associations through JABBER.

It is my contention that Hennessy may be challenging the way we associate words with their meanings, although I do not think his purpose in creating JABBER is exclusively for this reason. He may also be indicating the ever-changing nature of language (i.e. how words become antiquated, and also how new words are added to a language as time passes.) Nonetheless, it is possible Hennessy is attempting to show how words can be separated from meaning and connotation. Perhaps he is attempting to break the traditional notions of the significance of words and how they are tied to their meanings. He may be proposing one or several questions, What is really in a word? What is the significance of a word? How do we mentally process the concept of words?

I realize that this is a rather grandiose and perhaps far-reaching opinion. I am also aware that there is an obvious problem with my argument in that, from a young age, we, as human beings, are indoctrinated with the meanings and connotations of words. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to tell whether or not words are, in some way, deliberately connected to that to which they refer. Most likely, a (rather infeasible) controlled experiment would need to be performed in order to even begin determining the validity of my opinion—or inquiry, one might call it. One may look to etymology, but it is not sufficient in this case for explaining how and why sounds are combined to create words. Nonetheless, it certainly piqued my curiosity when considering JABBER, its purposes, and the questions it raises.

Orson Whales: Representative vs. Evocative Meaning

I was very transfixed with the Orson Whales piece by Alex Itin. Unlike the other two pieces, it used both visual and auditory representations to engage its audience. Right away, I found myself drawn in by the combination of visual stimulation and the constant transition between the deep voiced narration and the sharp sounds of Led Zeppelin.

Right away we know the Orson Whales piece represents the author’s unique interpretation and perhaps contrast between Moby Dick and the life of Orson Welles. The piece directly depicts the struggles of life, as in the scene with the drunk; i.e. alcoholism. We’re taken thorough a life’s journey, the ups and downs and ins and outs of this individual Itin represents.

Evocatively, the deeper meaning(s) I interpreted from the Whales piece showcased three main themes. First, there is a theme of life and death; what we see, live, and experience throughout our lives. As well as those things we might not see ahead of us. Which leads to the second theme of betrayal. Which I believe traces back to Itin’s interpretation on Welles’ own life. Finally, there is the theme of tragedy which ties in with life,death, and betrayal. All of these themes, I believe, represent what Itin is trying to portray with his Moby Dick/Orson Welles mash up.

~Constance

Blog#1 Orson Whales

The three completely different textual media samples that were shown to us right away were all interesting. Of the three, I found the Orson Whales to be the most interesting and unique. Sure, the Jabber engine could create random words, and the Firefly showed lots of creativity and needed acted on user involvement, but I loved the meshing of the arts of Orson Whales.

To me, the representational meaning of Alex Itin’s “Orson Whales” is to show the ability of a novel to turn to life. By using the actual pages as a canvas on which to tell the story, mixed with sounds and dramatic music, the novel takes a life of its own and forces the reader to be enveloped within story. Rather than just sitting down and reading the book with a freedom to imagine anything, Itin uses multiple drawings to create a sort of movie. I, having never really read the novel of Moby Dick, can get a faint understanding of the book just by watching the pictures. The combination of the voice of Orson Welles as the narrator, clips from his movies, the intricate drawings, and the music of Led Zeplin not only create a new way to tell the tale, but also create a ‘creepy’ vibe in which the tale is told through.

The evocative meaning of Itin’s piece is the intertwining of various forms of art in order to create a new form – textual media. By using multiple clips, such as the voice of Welles, the music of Led Zeplin, his own illustrations, and Melville’s pages, Itin has creatively generated a new way to perceive and read the novel through the fusion of diverse sources. Itin’s mixes the arts to create his own art in which he shows his own personal interpretation of the novel/song/narration. Though the representational meaning of “Orson Whales” clearly shows a combination of sources, the evocative meaning of creativity and personal interpretation become hindered and hidden.

I think the commonality among the three new ‘textual media’ examples we saw we’re creativity and personal interpretation. Creativity allows us to act on our own personal interpretations and beliefs as well as how we feel about certain things, no matter the type of art.

On “Orson Whales,” : Evocative and Represational Meaning

“Orson Whales” combines different audio, video, text, and animation to create a multimedia collage depicting the flawed nature of man. What I found most intersecting is that the only original media used was the author’s hand drawn animation. All the other material was taken from previously established works.

Representational Meaning:

When the different pieces are combined as a whole, certain symbols and themes are established which make connections between the tragic heroes: Charles Foster Kane (Citizen Kane), Narcissus (Greek Mythology), and Captain Ahab (Moby Dick) and John Bonham (Led Zeppelin).

Led Zeppelin’s song “Moby Dick” is comprised mostly of a drum solo showcasing the mastery of percussionist John Bonham, whose life was tragically cut short due to the effects of alcoholism. Charles Foster Kane’s pursuit of money and material possessions ultimately lead to an unsatisfying life. The tale of Narcissus, which is about a young man who falls in love with the reflection of himself in a fountain and because he could not “grasp the mild tormenting image, plunged into [the fountain] and drowned” (this passage can be heard around 0:46). And Captain Ahab’s obsession with the great white whale and his thirst for revenge lead him to his own tragic demise.

Many symbols are used in the animation to punctuate the thread between the different works. Animation of the figure chasing after a bottle labeled with a dollar sign, looking at himself a mirror, plunging into the water, drowning and being swallowed by the whale are repeated throughout the piece in an attempt to illustrate the possible danger of each man’s unhealthy fixation.

All the plots of these individual stories are basically the same: Man discovers something, obsesses over it, and dies unsatisfied.

Evocative meaning:

The last audio passage heard over the video clip of Charles Kane walking down a mirrored hall addresses the inevitable fade of even the greatest of artworks. What the passage argues is that due to the constant change of cultural contexts and the decreasing/discontinued use of obsolete media, even the most celebrated works of art are at risk of being forgotten. The author is, in a sense, arguing that the only way for art to survive is to stay kinetic. Similar to the way that the digital sampler revolutionized the way people thought about music—by taking something old and using it a different way—all artwork can be kept relevant by continued reference and tendency towards change.

This is not a new practice either. In the opening line of Moby Dick, Melville makes a reference to a character in the Old Testament of the Bible (Ishmael, the rejected son of Abraham). This reference instantaneously adds depth to the character using the reader’s prior knowledge and providing Melville with the opportunity to expand ideas in new directions.

Technology has given artists and authors the opportunity to experiment not only with new forms of media, but the combination of old and new media as well. By embracing the artwork of the past as well as the technology of the future, we might not have to watch them “wear away into the ultimately and universal ash.”

Matt Z

JABBER: Just Nonsense?

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?

Orson Whales and Evocation

As Orson Whales guides viewers on a scrambled hunt for the white whale, it carries through different meanings.  To watch it straight through gives only a scattered narrative, almost like a fragmented stream of consciousness.  Still, anybody familiar with the story of Moby Dick can gather its intentions as a video.  As the images cycle and hit their cues along side the music, everything comes together to form the end result.  Still, however, the parts of the whole can tell–and no doubt have told–their own stories, from the very literal novel, serving now as a canvas, to the song, setting a tone and a tempo.

But these separate stories are not all told simultaneously, nor do they converge to tell the same story.  Instead, they all come together to form a new journey.  This is a path that is unchanging in its presentation, but likely not the same for any two viewers.  As such, the majority of the video’s impact is, I feel, evocative.  To those more familiar with the novel’s plot, this may be a gripping hunt for the white whale, riddled with vengeance and music fueling rage and confusion.  to those that haven’t read the work, the video still combines various arts to produce different feelings and interpretations.

Though the work is unchanging, unlike the other two works, it is much the same in that interpretation from one person to another is likely always different.  All the various elements come together to form an experience that anyone can access, but that nobody can experience like anybody else.  It is the difference between seeing the video, hearing its music, and then stepping back and taking it all in.  The cumulative effort of all the different mediums transforms a song, or a book, or a series of paintings into a collaborative work, and takes all the evocative meaning from those works and combines them into an amorphous thought, which can then be molded to any viewers’ tastes.