Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

favoured the multicursal conception of the labyrinth in detriment to the unicursal one. That is, the idea of the labyrinth as chaos got fixed as paradigmatic. With such conception, it was difficult to approach the nature of narratives which usually have some order; there is a beginning and an end.Cybertexts, on the other hand, which can be defined as those narratives that require an effort in an extramental sense in order to be read, epitomize what Aarseth understands as ergodic literature. That is, they represent a metaphor of the labyrinth in its pre-Renaissance sense: the entanglemente between chaos and order. And it is necessary to say that cybertexts , unlike some entries on the internet seem to suggest, do not necessarily make reference to texts offered through virtual formats. In fact, they can also appear in printed versions. That is, the concept of cybertexts goes beyond the mere medium through which we receive a text.As examples of cybertexts, that is, ergodic literature, Aarseth mentiones some of the following ones:a. The I Ching.b. Night of January 16th by Ayn Rand.c. MUD games.So, as you can see, videogames can be interpreted as some form of literature. I find this particularly interesting, since nowadays the gaming culture is becoming more widespread. We tend to claim, and I include myself within this group, that new generations seem to read less. And to a certain extent this might be true; however, it might also be the case that these generations are also consuming literature but in a way that is mostly alien to us. If videogames can be considered, as Aarseth suggests,as a new type of literature that can be subordinated to the concept of ergodic literature, then it seems evident that younger people are consuming a lot of it.Let us take the example of one of the most well-known strategic videogames: starcraft.What I find fascinating about this game is that it sort of resembles chess but in a virtual format. In order to beat the opponet, one neads to know how to manage the resources and balance the forces that are at one disposal. And, if one loves this type of games that require a lot strategy, it seems that it is hard that one can ever get bored of it. Every time one plays, there is never the same result. Certainly, sometimes one will win, and others lose, but the narrative that is co-created between the player and the rules that come built-in within the game will never be repeated. Even if some of the narratives produced in the game seem to be simi

Options

lar, they will never be exactly the same. In other words, the narratives are interactive. The courses that they take will partially depend on the decisions that we take when playing. For this reason, Aarseth says that within ergodic literature we can overcome the ideology that establish a clear boundary between author and reader/player. Who is the author of the narrative that is being co-created when the user plays the game? The author of the game? The player? The rules establish in the game? According to Aarseth, as was mentioned before, within ergodic literature the narratives are the result of co-created actions: player and rules of the game(author).So, now it should be more clear why the concept of the labyrinth qua both order and chaos is appropriate for understanding the ergodic literature. Like in the case of videogames, there are some rules that come with the game, and, in this regard, we have some order, but, at the same time, there is some chaos, since there is no clarity about how the narrative will end up being. The narrative is created once the user plays the game. For this reason, Aarseth will also refer to some cases of ergodic literature as cybord literature. This concept would make reference to the fact that the narrative produced would have been partially created by some human interaction — user and author of the game- , but at the same time by the machine within the game that establishes what can and cannot be done.At this point, I think it must clear why this topic of ergodic literature is so fascinating. It is related to the concept of cybertexts and cyborg literature; both concepts worth to be analyzed.I hope this short explanation of the concept of ergodic literature had been sufficiently satisfactory for the starters in this topic. I certainly recommend checking out the book of Aarseth if there is time. It is without any doubt worth it.So wrapping up the main points about what ergodic literature is:1.- It makes reference to the narratives that are interactive in the sense that they are co-created between a user/player and the author.2.- This literature contains both an orderly and chaotic aspect. For this reason, it can also be understood through the metaphor of the laberynth: unicursal and multicursal. That is, there is a beginning and an end of the narrative, but in the beginning there will not be clarity about how the narrative will exactly end up being.3.- To a great extent, cybertexts epitomize the phenomenon of ergodic literature.</article></body>

What Is Ergodic Literature?

The first time I researched about this term on the internet, I did not find so many entries about it and even the ones that I found were either too brief or somehow unsatisfactory in respect to clarity. This whole situation forced me to go to the book where the term was coinned for the first time. Cybertext, perspectives on ergodic literature by Espen J. Aarseth.

After having read almost 75% of the book, I think I have gotten a better idea about what ergodic literature is. And to my surprise I found that some of the entries on internet were even misinterpreting the concept as Aarseth had devised it.

Having learnt the facts just mentioned, I thought that I could help with the democratization of knowledge through the writing and publishing of this small article. In the end, it is core my belief that we are all called to humbly help in this activity of knowledge.

Having said that, let us address already the question of the title without further delay.

What is ergodic literature?

I think that the best and most simple characterization of this kind of literature is that it is interactive.

Some might ask, but aren’t all kind of literatures somehow interactive? Yes and no. In a way, every approach to literature is interactive. For instance, when reading a book we are definitely interacting with it; however, this interaction is in most of the cases limited by the guidelines that are specified within the book about how to sail through the narrative. In the case of ergodic literature, on the other hand, the interaction is cocreative. That is, the guidelines about how to approach the narrative are built between the author and the reader/user. For this reason, Aarseth suggests that ergodic narrative ought to be understood as a labyrinth.

According to the author, before the Renaissance labyrinths used to be understood as both unicursal and multicursal. And because of this, it used to be fruitful to use the metaphor of the labyrinth for analyzing narratives. However, the post-Renaissance situation favoured the multicursal conception of the labyrinth in detriment to the unicursal one. That is, the idea of the labyrinth as chaos got fixed as paradigmatic. With such conception, it was difficult to approach the nature of narratives which usually have some order; there is a beginning and an end.

Cybertexts, on the other hand, which can be defined as those narratives that require an effort in an extramental sense in order to be read, epitomize what Aarseth understands as ergodic literature. That is, they represent a metaphor of the labyrinth in its pre-Renaissance sense: the entanglemente between chaos and order. And it is necessary to say that cybertexts , unlike some entries on the internet seem to suggest, do not necessarily make reference to texts offered through virtual formats. In fact, they can also appear in printed versions. That is, the concept of cybertexts goes beyond the mere medium through which we receive a text.

As examples of cybertexts, that is, ergodic literature, Aarseth mentiones some of the following ones:

a. The I Ching.

b. Night of January 16th by Ayn Rand.

c. MUD games.

So, as you can see, videogames can be interpreted as some form of literature. I find this particularly interesting, since nowadays the gaming culture is becoming more widespread. We tend to claim, and I include myself within this group, that new generations seem to read less. And to a certain extent this might be true; however, it might also be the case that these generations are also consuming literature but in a way that is mostly alien to us. If videogames can be considered, as Aarseth suggests,as a new type of literature that can be subordinated to the concept of ergodic literature, then it seems evident that younger people are consuming a lot of it.

Let us take the example of one of the most well-known strategic videogames: starcraft.

What I find fascinating about this game is that it sort of resembles chess but in a virtual format. In order to beat the opponet, one neads to know how to manage the resources and balance the forces that are at one disposal. And, if one loves this type of games that require a lot strategy, it seems that it is hard that one can ever get bored of it. Every time one plays, there is never the same result. Certainly, sometimes one will win, and others lose, but the narrative that is co-created between the player and the rules that come built-in within the game will never be repeated. Even if some of the narratives produced in the game seem to be similar, they will never be exactly the same. In other words, the narratives are interactive. The courses that they take will partially depend on the decisions that we take when playing. For this reason, Aarseth says that within ergodic literature we can overcome the ideology that establish a clear boundary between author and reader/player. Who is the author of the narrative that is being co-created when the user plays the game? The author of the game? The player? The rules establish in the game? According to Aarseth, as was mentioned before, within ergodic literature the narratives are the result of co-created actions: player and rules of the game(author).

So, now it should be more clear why the concept of the labyrinth qua both order and chaos is appropriate for understanding the ergodic literature. Like in the case of videogames, there are some rules that come with the game, and, in this regard, we have some order, but, at the same time, there is some chaos, since there is no clarity about how the narrative will end up being. The narrative is created once the user plays the game. For this reason, Aarseth will also refer to some cases of ergodic literature as cybord literature. This concept would make reference to the fact that the narrative produced would have been partially created by some human interaction — user and author of the game- , but at the same time by the machine within the game that establishes what can and cannot be done.

At this point, I think it must clear why this topic of ergodic literature is so fascinating. It is related to the concept of cybertexts and cyborg literature; both concepts worth to be analyzed.

I hope this short explanation of the concept of ergodic literature had been sufficiently satisfactory for the starters in this topic. I certainly recommend checking out the book of Aarseth if there is time. It is without any doubt worth it.

So wrapping up the main points about what ergodic literature is:

1.- It makes reference to the narratives that are interactive in the sense that they are co-created between a user/player and the author.

2.- This literature contains both an orderly and chaotic aspect. For this reason, it can also be understood through the metaphor of the laberynth: unicursal and multicursal. That is, there is a beginning and an end of the narrative, but in the beginning there will not be clarity about how the narrative will exactly end up being.

3.- To a great extent, cybertexts epitomize the phenomenon of ergodic literature.