ENGL 817AL - Field Notes: Why do we care (about fictional people)?

Empathy. 

The ability to feel emotion towards another person (or animal) is a defining characteristic of being human. The fact that we can feel emotion towards or about a fictional character in writing is a fascinating concept. Paskow and Hogan's articles on this aspect of literary study help define what readers are feeling, why they are feeling it, and what that means to the overall reading experience. 

But, it all started with Radford and Weston's "How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?"

"If you are at all humane, you are unlikely to be unmoved by what you read."

Readers care for their favourite literary characters; we get attached to them. And, when they die, it seems that we go through a specific kind of grief when they're gone. This grief is not the same as losing someone in reality because we know, that while the character is gone - dead - on the page, they are actually still alive in some part in the author's mind—but never to been seen(read) again.

This is part that fascinates me. The character is dead, yet the author could, if they desired, bring that character back in a short story; a prequel; a resurrection. But, often, the character was killed for certain reasons in story and plot (or in the cases of movies or television, because the actor wanted out or got fired). Readers - let's call us "fans" for this part - deal with this often by creating fanfiction, alternate timelines, or reason away the fate as something else. This is why coping with a fictional death is very different from a real death of someone in reality.

I began thinking about this concept of fictional grief a while before this part of this class came about because I have a friend who was trying to deal with this exact thing - a character in his favourite anime show died and he didn't know how to deal. Then these articles for my class were assigned and I feel like now, if he asked me for advice (because he knows what I am studying), I might be able to guide him a little in coping with the fictional loss.

This exact situation is why caring for fictional people is an ever evolving area of research in literature, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. It increases in intensity with the aspect of social media and the the rise in parasocial connections people are making with others online that they do not actually know (most commonly with influencers or celebrities). 

I think... I believe this is going to stick with me for quite a while.

ENGL 817AL - Field Notes: Why the title, Neuromancer?

This post is going to contain spoilers for William Gibson's Neuromancer, so proceed with caution if you're planning to read this book in the future.

Getting our bearings in class around the artificial spaces in this book was an exercise in acknowledging that not everyone has the same reference points when it comes to relating the descriptions given in words to a correlated visual medium or media for context. Examples provided to try and bridge the gap of words to visualization of what Gibson was potentially trying to get across were The Matrix, TRON, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, and Blade Runner. 

While this exercise was conducive to grounding our understanding of the text, that is not the most interesting thing that I picked up on. Our professor asked a question that no one was really able to answer, but I thought a lot about: "Why is the book titled Neuromancer, and not Wintermute even though Wintermute is the more prominent AI?"

My thoughts may come out a little jumbled, but I hope I get my point/theory across.

Gibson's text is called Neuromancer because it is the AI of the two that most resembles/relates/connects with Case's story and experience. As the novel states: "Neuromancer was personality. Neuromancer was immortality." Neuromancer explains to Case that it does not want Wintermute to succeed with the plan of breaking down the human limitations on them so they can merge together, it wants to remain as it is. It has a drive for survival, for its continued immortality in the state that it is in.

Case is a human neurologically cut off from the cyberspace for which he lived and breathe and to which he was effectively addicted. Case is in a downward self-destructive spiral until he is brought on to the mission that is being run by Wintermute to free itself. Over the course of the mission he begins making human reconnections and reconnections with himself, his "meat" body, and coming to terms with his reintegration with cyberspace. Case becomes invested in his own survival and the human capabilities of his body, so that he can remain able to access cyberspace.

This survival of who and what they are is what connects Case and Neuromancer - not Wintermute. Wintermute is analytical, "decision maker, effecting change in the world outside." Case and Neuromancer are more concerned with the internal - their own "self" - whereas Wintermute just wants to explore, learn, grow and become more that it is. It is not connected with Case in the same sense; it is just using Case as a means to an end, and that is why I think it is titled after Neuromancer, not Wintermute.

A discussion in this sense about title could also be applied to Yellowface. Yes, Kuang does the racial appropriation gymnastics of being an Asian woman that writes from the perspective of a white woman who "steals" and publishes the work of an Asian American woman. And, yes, there has been analysis of the yellowface controversy in the book, but a lot of the main plot has to do with the publishing industry and the stealing of another person's work. But, still, Kuang chose to title the book Yellowface to connect the text and reader in a very specific way to the main character.

I'm dabbling in this notion and idea that titling a book has to do in part either with the main character of a book or the main plot of a book. Definitely more to think about here...

ENGL 817AL - Field Notes: Commodification of Digital Persona

Well, it is finally done. I have presented my last seminar paper of my graduate program. And, I think it went pretty well!

As I previously wrote, I noticed a pattern of impersonation within the story of Yellowface, and I latched onto that for my seminar paper. Except, I focused on the social media impersonation that takes place and how it relates to specifically the impersonation of dead people on platforms like Twitter and Instagram.

There is some research out there on this, but one piece I found focused on the legality of these situations, or more accurately, how there is really nothing written into law in the United States to protect yourself from posthumous usage of your public digital data. Basically, if you post something online, audio, video, images, etc, you're leaving that data open to be used in nefarious ways by others who can get a hold of it.

This revelation opened up a whole conversation on protecting your online (artificial) persona and how the world has come to expect the continued commodification of a person's content after their death. One of my classmates brought up the state of Tennessee being one of the only ones to try and protect itself from A.I. use of the country music catalog because they are trying to preserve an era of history, culture, and art. Thankfully, I was glad to find out that Canada's copyright law protects you for 70 years post-death. 

I personally am very against AI usage, and I think there is no better time than the present to start protecting ourselves from it. I may post on Facebook and Instagram, but never with my voice or my face anymore. And my generation (the millennials) are getting off social media in droves now. We see how it used to be at the dawn of the platforms and what it is becoming and we're just not having it anymore. My husband has not had a Facebook account for five years now and shutdown his Instagram two years ago. In truth, I have been contemplating my own Instagram shutdown at the end of 2026... All these social media apps are all now just about collecting data and feeding you a dopamine loop or a depression spiral. There is no such thing as cultivating your own content anymore; it is a constant broken algorithm meant to monetize views and AI is making things even worse. 

I'm tired of the over commodification of hobbies and side projects - there is no just doing things because you love them and they relax you. Anything you are particularly good at now has to be a side hustle that makes you money. My Instagram is all about my cross stitching projects and the books I read. I have been cross stitching for 10 or more years and I have only ever made money off three projects. I do it for my friends and family as gifts and thank yous, not to turn a profit. But that is not what social media society wants anymore, they want you to build a brand off your hobbies.

The law note I used in my seminar advises that in the age of digital personas and social media we should be protecting ourselves by writing directives for the use of our digital data into our estate planning so that our descendants have control over what happens with it. Protecting ourselves posthumously from digital manipulation or impersonation was not what I ever thought I would have to think about in my lifetime - but here we are.