The reading this mainly talks about the relationship between massive database and the way we visualizing them by using digital tools. Should we arrange the database in a narrative way or “keep them as individual items, with every item possessing the same significance as any other” (Manovich, 74)

This reminds me of the article Timeline in Exhibits. The timeline seems to be an objective tool to exhibit things happened history. However, it ignores the other possibilities, any other chances that may change the history today. Same as the way we categorize the date into different genres. Do we limit the other possibilities of connection between different dates? Are they necessarily needed to be exhibit in a certain way? Folsom boldly practice idea and by rearranging those different databases, emancipated from the genres, the database grow across the boundaries and form a new kind of genre.(Folsome,78) However, I think, even though Whitman’s book could not be easily categorize into a specific genre, most of elements might show the inclination that make other people initially classified into specific genres. I might be wrong, but fractals obliterate the relationship exist before also diminish the structure in artworks. Knowing the development and the trend are also important for understanding.

Carrie Roy ‘s study is a good example of showing the relationships between elements change overtimes without losing details. Time, in this program, is not presented in narrative way or descriptions in the narrative interactions with chronology. Visualization is the way of presentation rather than the way of decisions. How to introduce characters? How to develop the dialogs between them and other characters? By coloring the threads, using textures, pattern surface and thickness of threads to show the importance, it would be easy to know the importance of different characters. Visualization might show the differences, even slightly difference. It is easy to see specific characters in the graph, and then to analyze it.