Although there is a certain code (neither in complete control nor out of control) which must be followed, it feels as if e-lit gives even more power to the reader, underlining random behaviour and multiagent interactions so that the meaning is given by the process of analysis, analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where: 'What we observe is not nature (text in this sense) itself, but nature/text exposed to our method of questioning.' The fact is that the outcome of an observation/interpretation depends upon the interest and the perspective of the observer, which showed that even in the physical sciences the classical distinction between subject and object was not tenable any longer. Instead of such a distinction—which had been based upon the Cartesian partition of the observable world—there is now the awareness of a high degree of connectedness and even interdependence between subject and object, as prof. Hayles stated 'a complexity', 'recursive feedback loops between humans and intelligent machines dynamically interconnecting', it became clearly evident that the act of observing actually influenced the result of the observation (quantum mechanics). This new view of the natural sciences, the thought that the selective nature of the observation had already interpretative qualities, has simultaneously appeared in the humanities and shaken historical undertakings in particular, for as Hayden White acknowledged 'we storify'... As prof. Hayles mentioned, Daniel Dennett’s work supports this idea of our brains multitasking, performing emergent complexities, overlaping processes that represent human consciousness. Dennett also mentions the hypothesis that there is an Orwellian mechanism in the brain, a revisionist historian of sorts who notices that the unvarnished history in this instance doesn’t make enough sense, so he interprets the brute events by making up a narrative about the intervening passage, and installs this history in the memory library for all future reference. Since this mechanism works fast, within a fraction of a second, the amount of time it takes to frame a verbal report of what one has experienced and the record one relies on, which is stored in the library of memory, is already contaminated. A perfect example of this is Girls' Day Out whith its 'shards' from the papers and 'nothing to see' except for the 'windtorn field' above the layers of hidden past/present/future (reminds me of Derrida's 'cinder'—remains of sth but non-existant) or the 'coiling and uncoiling' in The Jew's Daughter, of the text, words, narrators, actions ('haltless'—walking like 'Qlippoth, the Shells of the Dead' (Pynchon) which eventually halt and then resume again), leaving trails: 'scarf, wallet, or glove'... From Dennett's perspective all this could be a distraction of some kind, even a subterranean memory of some other event/person/detail that contaminates our memory in general. The “historical fact” has transformed thanks to the contamination of memory that came maybe one second after the event in question. The characters end up having false memories of their actual “real” experience. The subject’s point of view is spatially and temporally smeared...