Jessica+Grimes

Abrahams, Annie. “Separation/Sêparation.” //Being a Human//, 2001, Rpt. in The Electronic Literature Collection Volume, Vol. 2, 2003. 

Jessica Grimes
 * Media Specific Analysis (MSA)**

“Separation/Sêparation,” an ergodic, interactive poem, toys with the notion of the (dys)functional human-machine relationship that results from the human overusing the computer, in this case, Annie Abrahams, sufferer of RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury). Entering this poem is akin to entering the body/machine of the author who represents her body as a disembodied entity struggling to recover from withdrawals/co-dependency. Of primary interest, according to Abrahams, is “questioning the possibilities and limits of communication in general and more specifically … under networked situations” (Monospeak). Indeed, as the user reads through the poem and its exercises, this theme of miscommunication plays a vital role in illustrating the insufficiency of communicating between a human and computer that “speak” and “read” two different languages.
 * Overview**


 * Textual Features**
 * Apostrophe poem (alternatingly addressing the computer and herself)
 * Introspective/reflective of bodies (her body and the computer) and their interaction
 * Fusion of First and Second-person narrator (Abrahams)
 * Third person narrator, interrupts the poem
 * Procedural
 * Personification


 * Media Features**
 * Textbook-like diagrams/images reinforced by ironic, comedic headings
 * Layered (diagrams overlay poem’s text)
 * Typewriter “feel”, the hand that touches the screen produces the text that mimics the font of old-style typewriters
 * Few orientation clues

Reading “Separation” pulls the reader/user (lab "rat") into a disembodied and yet embodied, experience. Clues from the text reveal the reader function as alternating between embodying the computer who reads the text and body language of the frustrated author whom the reader also embodies in mimicking the exercises displayed on the screen and (re)writing the poem in a desperate attempt to communicate her frustration to herself and to the computer.
 * Reading Experience**

The structure of the poem lends itself to a tactile experience—directions accompanied by a diagram of exercises overlay the text. As the reader rewrites the poem by moving her mouse in the left hand corner to unveil the body of the text (simulating the typewriter), diagrams of exercises appear with titles related to communicating to the computer, such as “Show the [computer your] Pain.” In fact, the diagram orients the reader/user to face the computer as though body language will communicate more effectively than writing. Performing these exercises gives the illusion of separation: the user has to remove her body from the computer to complete the exercise while her eyes remain trained on the screen where the directions appear and where the timer counts down. “Separation” then, is at best, farcical, at worst, symptomatic of an addiction. Either way, the playfulness of the piece seems unimpeded by the irony that the computer, the cause of RSI, facilitates rehabilitation through its body: displaying the exercises and being written on.

It is tempting to interpret this piece as a searing critique of the human-machine relationship, of the ways in which technology tyrannizes the user as though technology overcomes the agency of the user. Granted, the text may even support that view in its description of the machine as being maddeningly uncommunicative and yet arresting: “You are interesting/involving/absorbing/demanding” (lines 5-8). Other derogatory comments suggest such an interpretation as well in accusing the computer of indifference and parasitism: “Your body became mine,/ but mine, mine/ muscles, nerves/ overused, abused, neglected You don’t feel my pain” (lines 11-15). Yet, the remedy—the exercises—ironically require repetitive movement, and thus seem arbitrary if the exercises counter what the user is doing. Additionally, the accusatory tone rings false, perhaps even juvenile in minimizing human choice.
 * Analysis/Interpretation:**

If Abrahams’s work responds to the popular fear of computers overtaking human agency, the dramatization of such a relationship implies the work should be read satirically. More importantly, a different critique could be leveled against the user whose inability to differentiate, that is to “separate” a human-human versus a human-machine relationship is more of a social commentary/reflection of contemporary culture. In fact, transferring (outsourcing) agency on a relatively passive, inanimate object incapable of defending itself seems too convenient even for Abrahams who concedes this point by inscribing how it is the human (essentially herself) who ascribes agency by anthropomorphizing the computer, and it is the human who becomes addicted, so it follows that is the human (she) who must extricate herself: “I have to leave you/ I need desintoxication/ I must fight/ I need to cherish/…From now on I will //use// you/ and I won’t let you take me over again” (emphasis mine, lines 26-29). Of course, her “remedy” means demoting the computer to a mere tool, instating a new hierarchy and negating its right to "speak" or disrupt her life.

1). Hayles describes the human-machine relationship as heterarchical. What works (including this one) illustrate, complicate, or disagree with this notion? 2). If humans coevolve with their technology as indicated through neural plasticity and physical changes (Hayles 87, 112-114), how does digital literature reconfigure the body? 3). Does the body become disembodied in cyberspace or at least lose its "senses" in the act of reading more so/less so than when reading print texts? (Hayles 137) 4). If one accepts the premise of the computer being an autonomous being, how is the relationship between human-machine escape exploitation as implied in Abrahams's "remedy"?
 * Lingering Questions:**