Monstrous Genres: Inverting the Romantic Poetics in Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl

in Screen Bodies
Restricted access

Abstract

This article revisits questions of embodiment (screen and otherwise) with regard to one of the most representative first-generation hypertext fictions—Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl—in order to show how this new genre’s search for identity takes the form of a programmatic inversion of the principles underlying the Romantic poetics and imagery and of a conscious identification with the forms that established views of literature exiled from its realm. The analysis follows the train of metaphorical oppositions deriving from the contrast that Patchwork Girl sets up between book and hypertext by presenting itself as a derivative of Mary Shelley’s novel embodied in a monster (re)born from discarded pieces (of prose or flesh) as opposed to the beautiful and harmonious body that is the book.

Contributor Notes

Eliza Deac earned a PhD in philology at the Faculty of Letters of Babeș-Bolyai University in 2016, where she presented a dissertation on the transformations of the poetic language in response to the development of new media, as illustrated by the experimental literary trends of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Screen Bodies

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Experience, Perception, and Display

  • AarsethEspen J. 1997. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • BolterJay David. 2001. Writing Space: Computers Hypertext and the Remediation of Print. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • DeacEliza. 2014. “Between Dismemberment and (Dis)embodiment: Defining (Hyper)text in Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl.” Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Dramatica 59(2): 147167.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de ManPaul. 1984. The Rhetoric of Romanticism. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • de ManPaul. 1986. The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • de ManPaul. 1997. Aesthetic Ideology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • DerridaJacques. 1974. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Hayles N. Katherine. 2005. My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Hayles N. Katherine. 2008. Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • JacksonShelley. 1995. Patchwork Girl [CD]. Watertown, MA: Eastgate Systems.

  • KirschenbaumMatthew G. 2008. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • KittlerFriedrich A. 1990. Discourse Networks 1800/1900. Trans. Michael Metteer with Chris Cullens. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MallarméStéphane. 2001. The Book Spiritual Instrument. Ed. Jerome Rothenberg and David Guss. Trans. and visually interpreted by Michael Gibbs. New York: Granary Books. http://www.granarybooks.com/books/rothenberg/rothenberg5.html (accessed 30 November 2015).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ManovichLev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • MelotMichel. 2006. Livre. Paris: L’œil neuf éditions.

  • MillerHillis J. 1987. The Linguistic Moment: From Wordsworth to Stevens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • MontfortNick. 2005. “Continuous Paper: The Early Materiality and Workings of Electronic Literature.” Nickm.com January. http://nickm.com/writing/essays/continuous_paper_mla.html (accessed 30 November 2016).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NolandCarrie. 1999. Poetry at Stake: Lyric Aesthetics and the Challenge of Technology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • NybergLennart. 2009. Bodies of Poems: Graphic Poetics in a Historical Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Quintilian. 2001. The Orator’s Education. Bks. 68. Ed. and trans. Donald A. Russell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • RoseMark. 1993. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • ShelleyPercy B. 2002. “A Defence of Poetry.” In The Selected Poetry and Prose of Shelley ed. Bruce Woodcock635660. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ThibodeauKenneth. 2002. “Overview of Technological Approaches to Digital Preservation and Challenges in the Coming Years.” The State of Digital Preservation: An International Perspective. Washington DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub107/thibodeau.html (accessed 30 November 2016).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TodorovTzvetan. 1984. Theories of the Symbol. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2 2 2
Full Text Views 14 14 14
PDF Downloads 2 2 2