On the one hand, I certainly think that serious creators of large-scale computational literary systems, and particularly those involving repetition, should study Homer and Beckett. It is a good idea to ground one’s systems in the literary practices of specific authors and those seen in specific works, because a particular technique, formally defined, does not have only one purpose or effect. For a Ph.D. project about literary repetition in English, it would be essential to study both Homer and Beckett.

On the other hand, I believe a bottom-up approach of simulating a technique, such as repetition, without deeply considering what it is for could still be worthwhile. An offhand project (for NaNoGenMo, for instance) that models repetition could lead to interesting discoveries, even if the creator doesn’t make the astute distinction that you did. It’s possible to build a system that repeats in various different ways and then see what the effect is by reading the output. And, one could build a repetition system first and later study Homer and Beckett.

I guess, then, that I generally agree — but I don’t think that one needs to consider what the technique is for initially and then begin building. I think one can begin by experimenting and find out later, through reading and experience, what the purpose of a technique is. And then wash, rinse … and repeat.

The reason I brought up repetition in The Odyssey and in Endgame is because they are used so very differently in these two cases: in Endgame, repetition is used to underline the fact that the characters are trapped. In The Odyssey, repetition is used to provide moments of continuity and reassurance: no matter how bad things get, dawn is coming once again with her rosy red fingers.

I worry that any attempt to build a computer model of a literary technique (say, repetition), which does not focus on what the technique is for, is not going to capture the importance of that technique. My reason for bringing up The Odyssey and Endgame is that repetition is used in these works to serve such different narrative ends.

cheers, Richard

I think “texture” or discourse-level variation is quite important. In Richard Evans’s talk today, he described a murder mystery and talked about how his AI influenced characters’ behavior in it. But an exceedingly important thing about a murder mystery, as far as I can tell, is that a character is murdered (in the underlying storyworld) but the act of this murder itself is not narrated. The narrator skips past this and only later do we figure out who committed the murder. This move (this ellipsis) is hard-coded in systems now, but I think it shows that the question of what to include and what to omit is a central one in narrative.

“Moon shots,” extremely ambitious projects, are not at all a bad idea. The issue I have is with how principled or structured a particular problem is and whether the focus is going to be productive. In developing a flash fiction author or a simulated Beckett, where do you start? In investigating repetition, you can begin with a poetics of repetition (e.g., Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition). Or you can begin with a concept such as suspense/surprise. There are concrete first steps. And, what does it mean to have a system that does 25% or 75% of flash fiction poetics or a similar amount of Beckett? Such a system might not do anything recognizable. On the other hand, a system that implements 25% or 75% of the poetics of repetition is indeed sensible to imagine, and I imagine it would do reasonable well at narrating even if it was not at the level of a master author.

I do recognize that I’m not the one with Ph.D. students who can focus on projects like these, so my suggestions, and my ability to work with students in these directions, will be limited by that. (I have too much else going, and too few resources in terms of research collaborators, to pursue ellipsis and extend the very slight initial project of “Through the Park.”) But I feel that these are reasonable directions to pursue, with a balance between certain aspects of generality across narratives and certain types of cultural and individual particularity.

What I’m concluding from your comments are:
1) I didn’t include any examples of the poetics of texture (ellipses, repetition), and I agree that textual texture contains many interesting phenomena worthy of attention.
2) The idea of starting with micro versions that minimize process and push much of the narrative phenomena of interest onto carefully authored content, and then incrementally adding more to the process model to increase generativity and opportunities for interaction is a great one. I think this could be applied to projects looking at Brechtian drama, or “ends-with-a-twist” flash fiction, or nested levels of intentionality in Woolf as well as to texture as you have done.

So, for instance, I think working with the poetics of repetition might be a good idea, or doing something of that sort. Michael is looking at the poetics of flash fiction and other coherent practices and genres. Although I prefer looking at smaller-scale narrative aspects, I do agree that attention to poetics is essential.