The Body Electrate

Ulmer’s work is certainly interesting. I’ll give him that. In truth, as I’ve noted before, I rather resistant to some of the concepts as they are articulated in Internet Invention – to what I see as an ironically reductive psychoanalytic collage of the auto-biographical (non)self. Now, it may likely be the case that I disagree more with Internet-Invention-Ulmer than I do say Object-of-PostCriticism-Ulmer or Electronic-Monuments Ulmer or even Ulmer-Ulmer. I had some qualms about ReasoNeon, it’s true… but for this post, I am going to choose to focus on one of the elements in this portion of reading (Entertainment Discourse) that I have less up-and-down issues with. I have expended a decent amount of energy disagreeing, so I want to be sure to keep an open mind that allows me to see the material that I do agree with as well.


A thread that I find quite interesting in this section is the reference to the Body – to the corporeal self. This is something that is obviously very important in our individual/collective lives, and is certainly important in the Entertainment industry (in myriad ways)… and is something that should be important in electracy.


Ulmer writes that “the documentation procedure for each installment of the mystory should develop as many sensory signifiers as possible that are relevant to the memory” (129). This is something that storytellers have latched onto since the early oral traditions, and it is something that our entertainment industry is still exploring. While Smell-O-Vision may not be a reality any time soon, the 3-D Technology employed is bringing the body closer to the story than ever before, confounding our senses, and giving new meaning to the theater “experience” (even the HOME Theater Experience(Here’s an ARTICLE that I find interesting regarding the “real” and “not-so-real” 3-D production techniques, and here’s ONE on the 3-D Home Theater coming to a Living Room near you).


The Body has been an important tool in the modern Entertainment industry since its filmic origins a century ago:

“Note how the actors in the scene […] performed their role. How […] they use their bodies to convey meaning” (130).

And Bodies have been used in intriguing ways to convey movement in multi-layered ways. Take, for instance, the unique vocal and kinetic delivery given (by Frank Oz) to this piece of Entertainment legend:

“The wise one: a mentor gives guidance and support to the subject” (126).

And here is the trailer for a film I just came across and purchased --- it is my Entertainment Discourse plan for this coming weekend:



So how might/should/is this influence(ing) electracy? Ulmer gives us pretty good cues, for instance, referencing Richard Bolt of MIT who “demonstrated his point [about dealing with computers conversationally] by means of a computer program that responded to VOICE COMMAND, GESTURE, and GAZE” (139) – the components of classical rhetoric’s Bodily DELIVERY canon.


A simple, but important, element in electracy-generation is the need to keep an openmind. We have been given glimpses of what the electrate future might look like, and we should continually allow ourselves to imagine:



Now, I am not fully on board with all that Ulmer is saying in this pages about the bodily self (… shocking, I know). The mystorical value in gestural imitation, material fetishizings, and the detachedness claim that “when you go online, even if your body is in Kansas, your spirit is not in Kansas anymore” (178) are all troubling to me. But alas, I’d prefer to end on a high note: