N. Catherine Hayles's "Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary" is a very complicated and difficult read. With constant references to huge events in electronic literature, which to the novice are completely unheard of, the works seems confusing at best. Just what type of crack was Hayles on when she wrote this. I will admit there are instances when it actually makes sense, but seriously, were all those references and diction nessecary to achieve her point?

I didn't just passively read this, I sat at my computer and looked up both words, and references she mentioned. That helped a little, but it was still confusing. For example, "...Deviant: The Possesion of Christian Shaw, combines primitivism with a sophisticated visual sensibility, contemporary landscapes with a narrative originating in the seventeenth century." (9) What? Why did it have to be written like that? Could she have simply wrote "it is a combonation of simple and complex visuals based on a work in the seventeenth century?" Maybe I am being too critical, but it seems unessecary.

At the end, I am left with the key sentences in the passages. Having little to show for the fourty- two pages of reading other than lots of references and few concrete ideas. It might just be my lack of knowledge that creates this perception. If that is the case, however, should a book I am reading to gain more matter on the subject provide that knowledge more adequately?
You tell me.