One thing that appeals to me about the format of Toroko Gorge is its capacity to offer consistent, partially original lines based only on a selection of vocabulary on the part of the author. I’m reminded of Barthes’ article The Death of the Author. In the case of these text’s, the author provides a loose framework, while the actual poem is composed independently by an algorithm. Our experience as readers is only indirectly shaped by the author, and in this case shifts with each reading. In fact, this text may represent the most literal manifestation of what Barthes described as “multiple writings”. While in his essay he was referring to the use of subtext and double meanings, in the case of Toroko Gorge the text is rewritten with each reading. Of course, these varied writings are all confined by the framework provided by the author; the text cannot expand beyond the input of the author and is limited to different combinations of words and syntax.
But it is possible nonetheless for the occurrence of certain combinations in a given order to provide differing interpretation, including ones diverged from the author’s intent. When looking at the source code of these text we can see dozens of words and phrases are used to seed the algorithm used to form these poems. While these can certainly be limited to the themes and motifs the author has in mind, it would be impossible to predict all the combinations that an algorithm might produce. For example in “Gorge”, a variation by J.R. Carpenter, one line generated was “Mandibles char the bowls.” I wasn’t aware mandibles could char anything, let alone bowls. I can’t say that Mr. Carpenter didn’t predict this permutation but of all those this particular poem generated it seems one of the more likely ones to have evolved independently of the author’s intent.
This particular example, and I would hazard any example taken from one of these poems, can still make a degree of sense in the broader context of a given poem. This reflects the limitations imposed on by the author, who with regard to these texts can be said to be imposing order on chaos. To me this suggests that no work can entirely shake the author. But when I read these poems I think to myself, “I wonder what this thing will come up with next?” The author conversely is far from my thoughts. As Barthes writes the author’s only power is to “mix writings”, at least in this context.