Names can shape fields. In the proposal for a panel to be held at the MLA this week, Lori Emerson argued that the introduction of the term “electronic literature” by the founding of the Electronic Literature Organization in 1999, in fact founded the field by creating “a name, a concept, even a brand with which a remarkably diverse range of digital writing practices could identity: electronic literature,” as Lori explains in a blog post. Seen in this perspective, the first book on electronic literature is Loss Glazier’s Digital Poetics in 2001. This renders invisible the very rich theory and practice of electronic literature before 2001 (as Mark Bernstein has pointed out), which I dislike, but Lori is correct in that a name that a field agrees upon is important in terms of establishing a creative and scholarly field.

The discussion did lead me to wonder when the term electronic literature first became common. Did the ELO really invent it? Fortunately we live in an age where this sort of question can easily be answered, at least partially, so I asked Google.

Google has digitised around 4% of all books ever published (as described by the Culturomics research team in Michel 2011), and Google’s Ngram viewer allows us to graph the occurrence of terms over time in all those books. Here is a graph showing the rise and fall of “hypertext fiction” (the red line) and the rises of “electronic literature” (the blue line) and “digital poetry” (the yellow line). “Digital literature” (green) is also fairly common, but “e-poetry” just gives us a flat purple line along the bottom of the graph.

Google's ngram viewer allows us to graph the frequency with which different terms for electronic literature were used in books published between 1985 and 2008. The terms are "hypertext fiction", "electronic literature", "digital literature", "digital poetry" and "e-poetry".

As expected, hypertext fiction (the blue line) was the more popular term in the 1990s, but it also retained its dominance for several years into the 2000s. This could show that the new term “electronic literature” took time to gain general acceptance, or it could also simply be a by-product of the slow pace of scholarship and book publishing. By 2008, the term “electronic literature” is still not as popular as “hypertext fiction” was at its peak, although the combined use of all these terms is growing steadily. It is interesting to see how high the use of “hypertext fiction” remains, even after the dominance of “electronic literature, and the rapid rise of “digital poetry” is particularly striking.

A problem with this graph is that the term “electronic literature” was frequently used in the 1980s and 1990s to describe research literature that is in electronic form, and so there are a lot of false positives, especially in this period. In fact, almost all uses of the term before the late 1990s are in this non-literary sense of the word. However, by clicking through and looking at the individual hits for each year I did find a few notable exceptions.

Jay Bolter published an article in 1985 called “The Idea of Literature in the Electronic Medium” (in the journal Topic: Computers in the Libreral Arts, vol.  39, p 23-34) which consistently uses the term electronic literature exactly as we do today. However, he writes as though there are no works of electronic literature yet. In fact, there were works by Roy Ascott (1983), bp nichols (1984), Robert Pinsky (1984) and no doubt others, but these works were not easily accessible or gathered by a shared community. In the article Bolter  imagines a future electronic literature, writing that the adventure games of 1985 hold promise, but need better writers:

Electronic literature will never attract serious notice, if it remains at the level of the current adventure game. By the same token, no one would snow consider the motion picture an important art form, if it had remained at the artistic level of the nickelodeon. (page 25)

Bolter goes on to describe a system for allowing writers to write in a word processor (rather than typing into the program code itself) and a children’s version of the Odyssey that “enlists interactive participation”, much as the adventure game does. The described work would require readers to attempt to solve the problems Odysseus faces, changing the course of the story in doing so. He also proposes detective stories and quest literature as suitable genres for treatment in electronic literature.

I was surprised at how clearly Bolter states that “such literature is growing out of th computer games that are so popular today” (page 32), given how strongly authors of the late 1980s and early 1990s worked to distance themselves from games. But he also notes that the Oulipo’s works and concrete poetry are natural allies to the computer, and the possibility of generative electronic literature.

Bolter also uses the term “electronic literature” in his seminal book Writing Space (1991), although by this time, hypertext fiction had become the dominant genre and therefore the more common term.

A 1992 article in The Print Collector’s Newsletter mentions that Eastgate publishes electronic literature. In 1995, Robert Kendall uses the term in an article that presents an overview of electronic literature at the time, presciently titled “Writing for the New Millennium: The Birth of Electronic Literature.” So the term “electronic literature” was in use well before 1999 when the ELO was founded.

A few other interesting finds included a notice in Billboard 14 April 1979 of a conference at UCLA:

I would love to know what kind of electronic literature this was. It’s both exciting and frustrating to have such easy access to such a wealth of partial information!

I’ve written an essay on the early days of electronic literature that will be published in an upcoming special issue of Dichtung Digital that will include a lot of great papers on communities of electronic literature. The graph and some of the discussion are from that essay.

6 thoughts on “The history of the term “electronic literature”

  1. DigitalHumanitiesNow

    Editors’ Choice: The history of the term “electronic literature”

  2. Mark Bernstein

    Editorial notes:

    “Electronic Publishing and Electronic Literature.” In Edward DeLand (ed.), Information Technology in Health Science Education, Plenum Press, 1978.

    “…become the dominant genre…”: is “hypertext fiction” a genre?

    Michael Joyce, Forms of Future, MIT Communications Forum, 1997 uses the term. So does “Of Two Minds” (1995).

    The term “literature” is, of course, problematic, and was even more problematic in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Bolter and Joyce, HT87: “All electronic literature takes the form of a game, a contest between the author and the reader.” (Contrasting the “static and monumental” rigidity of print to the new opportunities of digital fiction.)

    Moulthrop 1989: “electronic fiction may be about to come into its own as a form of literature.”

    Literary Machines 1981 contains a chapter proposing a Universal Electronic Publishing System and Archive and defines the “docuplex” in terms of “electronic literature.”

    Lanham’s 1995 “The Electronic Word” is cautious in its use of “literature”, but clearly Lanham is suggesting and (problematizing) precisely that term in the title and elsewhere.

    Murray in Hamlet on the Holodeck (1997) uses “computer-based literature” but avoid “literature” when she can. The framing of her book (and title!) make the literary aspirations pervasively evident.

    A problem with this methodology is that many papers that discuss electronic literature have no need to use the term. My 1995 “Conversations with Friends”, for example, is obviously about literature, but finds no occasion to say so. Similarly, “Tearing Apart and Piecing Together” has no need to talk about electronic literature per se, though in places it does, for example, distinguish *codex literature*.

    I bet you could find something useful in Brenda Laurel’s 1991 “Computers as Theater”. And of course Coover’s 1992 “End of Books.”

    1. Jill

      Mark, thanks for that wonderful list of uses of the term! I had a feeling Ted Nelson used the term but couldn’t find it; thanks for that one. I checked Of Two Minds, but the exact term isn’t used – Joyce talks about “electronic writing” and of course about literature, but not about “electronic literature”.

      I absolutely agree that electronic literature has been discussed and theorised and written for a long time, and I think, also, that the field could just as well have ended up called something else. What I was trying to do here was not show that electronic literature as such was only infrequently discussed before 1999, or that a discussion of e-lit as LITERATURE was rare, but that the exact term “electronic literature” was used to describe literary works that use computation well before the founding of the ELO, or before Loss Glasier’s 2001 book. However it obviously wasn’t used very frequently, and other more specific terms were more common, such as hypertext fiction or interactive fiction or adventure game. I think a great deal of the work of the time is explicitly about literature, although that is also a category that is problematised. Thanks for pointing that out.

      So I’m specifically not looking for works that DON’T use the term even though they’re talking about the same phenomenon.

  3. Oreto Doménech

    Thank you for such an interesting article, and for the rich comments about it.

  4. James O'Sullivan

    Hi Jill,

    Has the paper from which these materials are drawn been published?

    Many thanks!


Leave a Reply to DigitalHumanitiesNow Cancel reply

Recommended Posts

Triple book talk: Watch James Dobson, Jussi Parikka and me discuss our 2023 books

Thanks to everyone who came to the triple book talk of three recent books on machine vision by James Dobson, Jussi Parikka and me, and thanks for excellent questions. Several people have emailed to asked if we recorded it, and yes we did! Here you go! James and Jussi’s books […]

Image on a black background of a human hand holding a graphic showing the word AI with a blue circuit board pattern inside surrounded by blurred blue and yellow dots and a concentric circular blue design.
AI and algorithmic culture Machine Vision

Four visual registers for imaginaries of machine vision

I’m thrilled to announce another publication from our European Research Council (ERC)-funded research project on Machine Vision: Gabriele de Setaand Anya Shchetvina‘s paper analysing how Chinese AI companies visually present machine vision technologies. They find that the Chinese machine vision imaginary is global, blue and competitive.  De Seta, Gabriele, and Anya Shchetvina. “Imagining Machine […]

Do people flock to talks about ChatGPT because they are scared?

Whenever I give talks about ChatGPT and LLMs, whether to ninth graders, businesses or journalists, I meet people who are hungry for information, who really want to understand this new technology. I’ve interpreted this as interest and a need to understand – but yesterday, Eirik Solheim said that every time […]