Response to Dr. Kendrick's article...
Questions for today:
1) We read in both the essay "The Laugh of the Modem" and in Murray's text that hypertext is a means of liberating the reader. "Linearity, hierarchy, the submission of a passive reader to a controlling author - according to these theorists (George Landow, Jay Bolter, Michael Joyce...) - is being overturned by the recursive structures of hypertextual writing." (Section 7 of the essay.) Is an author truly "controlling" a reader in a traditional text? The author leads the reader through the story, but if the reader doesn't like where they are going, can't they just stop reading, or skip ahead? (Bored or time-pressed readers do this all the time.) I have to wonder if the metaphorical notions of a heirarchical, dominating author is stretching a bit too far.
Answers: CB: I think you make some valid points in questioning if a (text-based) author is truly "controlling." There is no "Book Police," cops standing behind people- making sure you read books in a "linear" fashion. For the most part, the constraints of reading a printed book depend on the reader (starting from the beginning, skipping ahead, etc.). Yet because the very nature of hypertext fiction requires people to move in a roundabout way, this notion may not be so obvious. Forcing someone to move around (as hypertext does), now isn't that a form of "control" as well?
2) In hypertext, are we really given that many more choices than a traditional text has? It seems to me, again, that the reader of a traditional book can choose to read the text any way they want, last page first, skipping to the middle, what have you. Most people don't do that because they prefer the linear narrative (I would imagine. I know I don't skip around because I want to see how the author has constructed their tale.) Hypertexts, which leave the reader to decide how a story will progress, in most cases, are still bound by what the author has written. You may be able to choose which path to follow in the text, but the text still has an author who has created the choices for you. How is allowing the story to become fragmented a positive step for narrative?
Answers: CB:I think that this becomes a matter of texts being truly "self-explanatory." Writing in a fragmented way can be seen as way to reinvent ideas and keep things fresh (none of this "Old Dead Male Poets 101"). Perhaps the rules of narrative were made to be broken. And whether or not it is a "positive step" for narrative, I suppose we'll have to wait and see,...and possibly learn if we've made some grave mistakes in the process.
3) I was intrigued by the idea that was brought up in section 9 of the essay: "...what is achieved on-line is an assumption of whiteness and a glorification of the masculine." It has never occurred to me before to really consider WHO is writing the materials online. Perhaps this is because most of my online experiences are with an email group that has a very strong female element. (I belong to the Portland Industrial Goth email list and the female members of the group don't take much flack from the males.) What sort of gender, racial, or other biases exist online? Do most people think of online materials as "mostly white" and "glorifying the masculine?"
Answers: CB: This is tricky, as I think online text assume a more "anonymous" voice. Of course, there will be texts that are blatantly "female" or "white," but the beauty of the internet is that anyone can assume an identity that is different from who they really are.
1) We read in both the essay "The Laugh of the Modem" and in Murray's text that hypertext is a means of liberating the reader. "Linearity, hierarchy, the submission of a passive reader to a controlling author - according to these theorists (George Landow, Jay Bolter, Michael Joyce...) - is being overturned by the recursive structures of hypertextual writing." (Section 7 of the essay.) Is an author truly "controlling" a reader in a traditional text? The author leads the reader through the story, but if the reader doesn't like where they are going, can't they just stop reading, or skip ahead? (Bored or time-pressed readers do this all the time.) I have to wonder if the metaphorical notions of a heirarchical, dominating author is stretching a bit too far.
Answers: CB: I think you make some valid points in questioning if a (text-based) author is truly "controlling." There is no "Book Police," cops standing behind people- making sure you read books in a "linear" fashion. For the most part, the constraints of reading a printed book depend on the reader (starting from the beginning, skipping ahead, etc.). Yet because the very nature of hypertext fiction requires people to move in a roundabout way, this notion may not be so obvious. Forcing someone to move around (as hypertext does), now isn't that a form of "control" as well?
2) In hypertext, are we really given that many more choices than a traditional text has? It seems to me, again, that the reader of a traditional book can choose to read the text any way they want, last page first, skipping to the middle, what have you. Most people don't do that because they prefer the linear narrative (I would imagine. I know I don't skip around because I want to see how the author has constructed their tale.) Hypertexts, which leave the reader to decide how a story will progress, in most cases, are still bound by what the author has written. You may be able to choose which path to follow in the text, but the text still has an author who has created the choices for you. How is allowing the story to become fragmented a positive step for narrative?
Answers: CB:I think that this becomes a matter of texts being truly "self-explanatory." Writing in a fragmented way can be seen as way to reinvent ideas and keep things fresh (none of this "Old Dead Male Poets 101"). Perhaps the rules of narrative were made to be broken. And whether or not it is a "positive step" for narrative, I suppose we'll have to wait and see,...and possibly learn if we've made some grave mistakes in the process.
3) I was intrigued by the idea that was brought up in section 9 of the essay: "...what is achieved on-line is an assumption of whiteness and a glorification of the masculine." It has never occurred to me before to really consider WHO is writing the materials online. Perhaps this is because most of my online experiences are with an email group that has a very strong female element. (I belong to the Portland Industrial Goth email list and the female members of the group don't take much flack from the males.) What sort of gender, racial, or other biases exist online? Do most people think of online materials as "mostly white" and "glorifying the masculine?"
Answers: CB: This is tricky, as I think online text assume a more "anonymous" voice. Of course, there will be texts that are blatantly "female" or "white," but the beauty of the internet is that anyone can assume an identity that is different from who they really are.
posted by Brave Raideen at 6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home