Your homework assignment for Monday asks that you read the article, "The End of Books," by Robert Coover and make a blog posting of 1-2 paragraphs with your response to the material. You can access the reading here, by clicking on the title above, or by going to the course documents page on Blackboard. Please post your material before class on Monday. I will print out the responses and we will discuss them, along with the end of Galatea 2.2, in class.
As for directions on the assignment: I am not looking for a formal response, but you want to make sure that your response is based in part on the text you read. So, it's definitely great to include your thoughts on a whole host of topics related to the questions Coover and/or Powers raise, but make sure you refer some of them back to the reading. Please write me with any problems posting or completing the assignment. I look forward to reading your work and having an opportunity for you to share your thoughts with your classmates outside of class!
ADDENDUM: In case you are having trouble accessing the Coover reading on the NY Times website (sometimes they require a password if you're not on an institutional computer), I'll put a Word document version up on our Blackboard site, as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Coover writes about the encroachment of technology, specifically "hypertext" on the tradtional novel format. He shows both concern and excitement about this new medium.
I am a book lover. I have hundreds stacked around my apartment. The idea of doing away with physical texts is inconceivable to me. Powers writes about the tactile and sensual nature of books in a way that rings true.
Certainly the new forms of text, cyber and hyper, digital and maleable is an appealing outlet, especially for a generation raised on the internet. But as Coover points out there are endless obstacles to this concept in terms of criticism and closure. How can you ever say that you have "read" something if it never ends and can always be changed?
The novel holds a place in our culture that is sacred and, perhaps, it does promote a limited world view but that does not remove its value. I have read books that have changed my life and moved me in ways that nothing as ephemeral on the internet ever could.
Long live the book!
Well, this is the second time I'm typing my response because I apparently can't type my response first and then fill out my identity. I'm less than happy.
so here's the short version.
Synthesizers were a fad. The grape fruit diet was a fad. Hypertext is a fad. This trash will die. Books will live on. No one wants to curl up with their f-ing laptop in front of the fireplace to read a never ending PVP on-line novel.
Coover writes about the transfer from books to "hypertext" as if it has not already happened. Many classics of literature that are public domain are available online and so is close to every article written for the better part of the last fifteen years. I have no doubt that in my lifetime I will see people simply downloading new books instead of going out and buying the actual book. With that being said, I find the thought of having to stare at a glowing screen instead of a monochrome page offensive. I cannot imagine reading such epics as, say, The Lord of the Rings, on my computer. I have a hard time reading anything longer than a few paragraphs online but have no problem spending hours with a book.
Coover brought up a frightening scenario: so-called "hypertext books" that come with moving images and sound on the screen. Ok, that's called a movie - an art form which is also dying a slow death.
I'm sorry but without my BOOKS I would have very little reason to live.
This article directly addresses what is (in my opinion) wrong with technology. I dont really care for computers or the internet, probably because much of my life is spent on them, they are addictive to me. But the internet has this appeal because we have access to so much knowledge and so many resources. But when speaking of novels and switching from the hard copy to the hypertext, something is wrong. We are getting too ahead of ourselves, giving up the simplicities of life, many things that are "sacred". Though, I can appreciate the available access the internet gives to writers and readers, and such literary pieces as this article by Coover. The comparison in this article of sailing the islands and standing on the shore, and that one is not necessarily better than the other is rather silly to me. One is better than the other in my opinion but reading online is not better than curling up with a good book. What makes the printed book so sacred is that the words are there for better or worse, the thoughts are real and we find ourselves deeply connected to certan texts. Just owning a book sometimes is pleasurable, knowing it is alway there for you to reference or read. However, having the internet where everything is eternally temporary is not pleasurable. Hypertext will no doubt live on; but the physical novel will never die.
Coover describes new fads in writing but he does not really explain how it will really change literature. One can certainly understand how "hypertext" is appealing and unique, but it seems so different from reading an actual novel that I do not understand how it can be seen as a threat to it. No one wants to sit down for hours at a time and read a never ending story on a computer when they could be reading an actual story in a bound book.
I'm posting this for Philip Hilger.
Philip writes:
I had never even heard of "hypertext" until I read Coover's article; but I find the idea of hypertext fascinating. I don't really believe that books/printed material will ever go out of style simply because they are so much a part of out culture,but it is interesting to think of a book that can be changed as time goes on. Coover talks about the Hypertext Hotel, which is basically a malleable story. I
think that it would be interesting to read something from the Hotel today and then check back in 20 years to see how the story has changed as the world gets
older--cultural changes, economic changes, technological changes, etc. However, I do not think that this forum will be able to replace novels, which are much more cohesive and thorough, and perhaps more satisfying, in the end, for
reader and author alike.
http://gizmodo.com/5047109/plastic-logic-reader-looks-like-kindle-killer
If you click the above link, you'll see "a simple, ultra-sleek full-page 8.5-inch by 11-inch electronic book and newspaper reader with a flexible plastic touchscreen, Wi-Fi connectivity, and the ability to read regular Office documents without conversion of any kind." With this tool, one has access to (essentially) all books within one "book". Although this Plastic Logic tool is not yet in production, lesser versions like the Amazon Kindle are readily available. This is an example of hypertext's increasing tactility.
Hypertext is defined by the collaboration involved in its creation. What happens when an Internet article is printed? Does it become printed text because it can no longer be edited? Is it simply one snapshot in the life of the hypertext? Wikipedia is one of the greatest examples of hypertext (as I understand it). On wiki, one can track edits. Does each change represent a new edition of the hypertext (books are edited and re-released in editions)?
I have to say that on the general whole I disagree with several of the statements made in the article "The End of Books." In this article Coover discusses his views on the development of Hypertext and its ability to make the novel as we know it essentially obsolete.
While reading this article I was reminded on several occasions of the popular Goosebumps book from my childhood that allowed the reader to change the story as they were reading by making decisions about the text and turning to the appropriate page. On the occasions where Coover writes about the various students of the online writing classes being able to manipulate each others stories he spoke of the idea as if it were a new and inventive concept.
I found myself struggling to understand several of the paragraphs within the article due to Coover's extensive use of lists and for lack of a better phrase "computer jargon" as I admittedly know very little about computers, programs and development of sites etc. I'm very eager to see how others in class reacted to this article as I was slightly offended at Coover's claims that the novel is dying and that literature students are resistant to exploring the various branches of online text development. In my opinion as long at there are people who love to read and as long as there are literature students the novel will never die. As well as long at those students are willing to explore new ideas and concepts of literary development and discussion they will not be as fearful of the Hypertext fields as Coover is implying that they are.
Coover's article itself is a perfect example of the idea that print will die. I had enough difficulty reading an essay as long as Coover's on my computer screen.
As writers, Coover, Powers, and DeLillo all fear technology, or at least acknowledge its impact. Why read a book when you can read the critique of the book online?
While I have contemplated the possibility of the "death" of the library and print, I highly doubt books will go out of style. Reading books provide solid, physical gratification, something that scrolling through a digital copy of Lord of the Flies could never achieve. And while hypertext provides instant gratification as well, I believe people will still resort to books. I doubt in 30 years that people will read books via their iPhones while, say, waiting for the bus.
I could never hope to discuss both the issues brought up in Galatea 2.2 and in “The End of Books” in just two paragraphs so I’ll stick with the one that I feel like I’m most qualified to respond to. Robert Coover makes the argument that while print is slowly, but surely dying, a new digital format is waiting in the wings ready to take its place. While this may have been true in 1992 when the article was written, it is hard not to point to some contemporary examples in print that do what he believes can only be done digitally. One of the biggest things he cites is the “very effective use of formal documents not typically used in fictions…newspaper articles, film scripts, doodles and photographs” and so on (3). These seem to have been used moderately like in Mao II or not at all back then, but in Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close, which was written more recently, they are used with incredible results. The novel itself is told in little pieces that almost don’t make sense on their own, but weave together so masterfully by the end that it is hard to say that it follows the traditional conventions. Even more importantly, is the role of things like letters and pictures in the telling of the story. Throughout the story the prose in punctuated by important pictures that strengthen the plot. I would be ashamed and disappointed to ruin the ending for anybody of what is at the very least tied for my favorite book, but let’s just say that the novel ends with some of the most powerful images you could ever see anywhere. Clearly, Coover was on the mark as far as the new digital medium promoting experimentation, but since that time print has adapted and taken some of the best of hypertext’s features and used it masterfully.
The problem I have with Coover’s article involves his discussion of creative writing. He makes some strong statements that I feel are a little unfair and need to be addressed. The first is that students “write stubbornly and hopefully within the tradition they have read” (3). I think there is some truth to that, because everyone has their influences, but it almost appears as if Coover believes every student who writes only does so under the strict guidelines of what they have read. I’m feverishly working towards becoming more well read (and this class is certainly helping with the novel a week format!), but I can safely say that I’ve been inspired to write stories from many different sources. Perhaps, the most unique example I can come up with was being inspired by a character in the movie “Hellboy” (nerd alert!). I ended up writing a short story that had no elements of Sci-Fi, Horror, or Fantasy, which are the most prevalent ones in the movie. Instead, it was about two characters that were very damaged by loss, but managed to find some happiness in each other. That makes this portion of Coover’s argument seem like a hard sell to me, because there are creative writing students all over who are constantly trying out new things and seeking unique sources of inspiration.
I have mixed feelings about hypertext honestly. First, I think that it's just a fad that will eventually die because like Jim said no one wants to read from their laptop or desktop. Its uncomfortable and inconvenient. But then I think about how many books I could download and read from the internet compared to the inconvenience of having to go to the library or to a bookstore. I think that hypertext will live on because of the sheer amount of books that are available just at the touch of a button. I also think that having the ereaders that you can now get on your ipod, palm pilot, ect. I wouldn't mind at all downloading a book to read on one of those.
"The End of Books" suggests that hypertext will take over the printed novel. Hypertext is very convenient when you can find the source on the net, but it will never replace the novel. I collect books and love reading and don't see books in print going anywhere.
When Coover does speak about the positives in hypertext such as graphic elements and font changes, it just reminds me of how little society cares about the actual writing and only about how it looks. A lot of novels can be uploaded right into your cellphone and I am guilty of reading the newspaper for free every day online, but the printed novel will never go away and makes you think of simpler times and not the digital age.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with wanting to change a medium, but I think there is definitely room for both hypertexts and traditional texts. The idea of a fluid hotel story is intriguing (like a new Wii game), but you will always go back to Mario 3. In other words, it may
be enjoyable or feel different to read something like that, but it's too experimental to hold on to or to last. The more bells and whistles you add to the traditional format, the more likely the format is of becoming degraded or diffused.
There's something splendidly anachronistic about a book, like the graininess of a record. I have tried to read more than a few paragraphs on the computer and it's definitely not fun. I sit at my desk when I could sit anywhere with a book (maybe my fault for being cheap and inheriting the family desktop), the glow of my screen hurts my eyes after a bit, but above all, as many have said, there's nothing tactile about looking at a screen. The internet can only simulate (as Microsoft Word does) a page.
I am not sure what else to say... people like collecting things, people like physical representations of the wisdom they've accrued over time. Books appeal to (hu)man's vanity.
Cover wrote about the death of books, so to speak. As if you couldn't tell by the title. He mentions "hypertext" and what would happen to books when we incorporate that technology to novel. He seemed to be excited and worried about it at the same time.
Here is my thing on this issue. I am both excited and worried about it at the same time. If I had to think of pros and cons of this idea, it would be as fallows. A pro would be it would be more environmentally friendly to have books on the computer, we would save a lot of trees without using that paper. Another pro would be the books would be more readily available, like downloading music. However the cons would be the uncomfortability with snuggling up with your computer. It is hard to stare at the screen for so long. this would just add another item to the long list on why we are so dependent on technology. I do not think this would ever happen because the reason so much things end up on the web is because we are part of the need it now generation. I feel that the general population who are book fans are not part of that group and can appreciate where a book can take them. They would never get rid of traditional books.
(This is more than 1-2 paragraphs. Sorry, but there is too much to say.)
Hypertext is just one of the many symptoms of modern society. Fiction is certainly one of the many communicable diseases coursing through the veins of the internet. I have helped spread it myself over the years. However, I do not see an "end of books".
Digital fiction and hardcopy fiction have to exist side by side. With the accessability of hypertext, it is hard to imagine wanting it be done away with. Yet, there is still a place for books. Going off of my personal experiences, I know that both sources are fragile. I have had written works on paper that have been destroyed, for the obvious reasons. I have had works saved on to floppy disks and then technology changed. The works rot away in the now inaccessable storage, while the printed hardcopies are still floating around somewhere. I have put so many of my thoughts, ideas, and work on the internet. Through time however, I have been let down by forgetting where to find it all or it's having been deleted.
The physically published book also plays its role in weening out the garbage. I can't begin to tell how much trash floods the internet. "Writers" are constantly "pouring out their souls" into an apathetic ocean. I'm much more likely to see these "personal masterpieces" (which has all the creativity of pouring cement for a sidewalk) than anything actually worth my time or my bloodshot vision. To my knowledge, even the absolute worst books on any shelf must have gone through some sort of filter. Usually, this means many filters. Sparing the details of the journey from idea to print, it is an incredibly time consuming and careful process to produce a work that is as good as the author and his or her associates can possibly produce. Quality literature still must tread water in a sea that is the rest of the literature, in order to become recognized.
To "publish" something in hypertext means to find a place, type, and post. This process is more often a curse than a blessing for the quality of fiction or any other type of literature. Now, there is even the concern about the mutation of hypertext. Quality literature has to overcome an endless lanscape of quicksand, in order to not be lost. It is covered in muk and swallowed whole.
In my opinion, the best case scenario is as follows: A fiction is published in hardcopy. It reaches the shelves of bookstores and libraries. If it is good enough (or at least popular enough), it is translated into hypertext. From here it travels the reaches of the globe instantly. It will be free of many of the incurable risks of hypertext mutation, because of its many hardcopies already in existance. The literature is then printed again across the globe to be bought in hardcopy. The hypertext clone will float around the internet for eons, ready to be used in the absence of the hard text (or for those who prefer hypertext). The hard text will float around, for those experience the absence of hypertext or simply prefer hard copies.
I don't think there is any real way to critically respond to this essay. Technology is taking over the way we live and will continue whether we like it or not. Owning books is one of my strangest obsessions, I like to know that I still have them at hand, I like the smell, the texture. BUT, that does not mean that in 50 years, I will be able to go to a bookstore and have any book I want at hand.
There's something about sitting at a computer that reminds me of working. To me, I will always be reminded of lab reports, data processing, graphing, programming, etc. when sitting at my desk. But I am the transition generation. My kids and their kids will grow up reading books on their phones and buying books for school online for a year because it costs less. To them it will be a way of life, just as holding a book is my escape. It doesn't matter what we think at this point. It's more convenient, and it's already started.
To be honest I'm still just a little confused on what "hypertext" is exactly. From what I read of the Coover article, to my understanding it's a novel on a disc but troughout the novel there are various links that you can branch off with and kind of be the author in a sense because you can choose the direction of the story. If this is the case, I don't think I'm a fan. Not having experienced hypertext most likely does not put me in a position to make such a statement but in my opinion, hypertext almost defeats the purpose of the book. I like to read books because it allows me to leave this world and get lost in somebody elses. I like turning the page on the edge of my seat wondering where the author is going to take me next. I'm a very visual person and I love using the authors words to paint a picture in my mind. Not to mention I'm also a very indecisive person and having to make all of those decisions would be way to overwhelming. To me reading should be fun and relaxing. Hypertext, feel, just seems like a lot of work. I almost feel like the author couldn't decide on a direction to go in so he just gave you every possible scenario imaginable and said "here, you figure it out" and thats not cool. And that brings me to the my other big question, if you write a hypertext are you really writing it, because to me all the "author" is really doing is thinking of every idea imaginable and puting them into text on a disc. My idea of the author is to, through their writing, take your hand and personally walk you through what they wanted you to read. If I'm making all of the decisions, as far as I'm concerned I'm the true author of the hypertext. All the other guy did was provide me with a wide variety of ideas, which I probably could have done that much myself. In the case of hypertext you're not the reader, you're the writter.
I agree with Jaclyn when she said that downloading a book off an ipod or palm pilot is much more convenient than going to the library. Also, saying that paper text will surpass hypertext, in my opinion, is like saying writing on papyrus will outlast the paper text. Old ways of keeping literature die with new technology. Coover mentioned the world being a paper wasting society and during the search for renewable energy sources as well as trying to preserve our forests, getting books electronically makes more sense for our changing views of the environment. Hypertext will not only take over the modern novel, but it will be surpassed by other forms of technology as well. This is how it has been thoughout history.
I have to agree with Jessica on this one...I love to read: I do it constantly, and I can't even conceive of not having an actual, physical book to read from. Coover talks about hypertext "freeing the reader from the domination [of] the author" by allowing the reader to become a "co-writer" of the work. Doesn't that undermine the entire purpose of a piece of writing in the first place? The work presumably exists to communicate a specific thought or idea, set forth by the author, and conveyed by directed language carefully selected by that author. The concept of hypertext seems to disregard the fact that writing has such a purpose. And, by the fact of its constant "necessity" to change, Hypertext is not conducive to conveying anything: It must be nearly impossible to get the point when the text is constantly changing. Hypertext may be the future of writing, and it may become steadily more prevalent, but because of its very nature, its inability to efficiently, effectively communicate, I don't see it ever replacing the book.
After reading the article by Coover I agree and disagree with what he states. I completely agree that the use of computers and internet change the face of the writing world. People from all over the world now have the ability to access literature at the click of a button and search on the web. This is convenient by all means and allows text that may have never been discovered to reach all types of individuals. This easy access to readings may cut down on people actually purchasing text, but I do not think it will completely eliminate text books.
What person would rather sit at their computer for hours and read a whole book? Even when I read long articles at the computer it is hard to concentrate an focus for extended amounts of time. I definitely prefer to read in other locations than at my computer. So yes text have become an old technology, but I do not believe it will die any time soon.
I also agree with Coover, in the fact that "hypertext" has reshaped how writers develop stories. With the extended access to information as I stated before allows the writer to find an abundance of information. Text that we read are now discussing topics such as computers, as seen in Galatea 2.2, which shows the effect of technology on writing and people.
The Coover article was a little bit difficult to follow for me, since it is pretty outdated and focuses on hypertext, which must be fairly obsolete anymore (I've never heard about it before). Be that as it may, many of the main points are still valid in regards to the changing media for the written word. We are living in a time when one can subscribe online to The Wall Street Journal rather than have it delivered to your doorstep, or go for weeks on end without picking up a pen and actually writing something down rather than typing it. As much as we all enjoy having the world at our fingertips at all times, to me there is nothing that can replace the sight, feel, smell, and enjoyment of curling up with a good book. Let's face it--even a MacBook Air doesn't sit in your lap as comfortably as your favorite paperback when you're sitting on the couch. I really don't think we're in danger of having computers replace books all together, if for no reason other than the logistical issue of how to lay down, sit with your knees up, or curl up in a recliner and find a place for your laptop.
On the other side of the issue, progressing into virtual rather than print media will do wonders for paper consumption and have quite an environmental impact. There are already high schools requiring all students to purchase a notebook PC as freshman, virtually eliminating the need for textbooks and paper in one fell swoop. Luckily for opthalmologists and orthopedists, there will probably be lots of kids coming in needing glasses or with pestering cases of carpal tunnel syndrome. Not so lucky for the kids, or the parents who have to foot the bill (for the laptop and the doctors).
Personally, I can't stand reading extended passages on the computer screen and I hope that the world never comes to the point where there is no alternative. What would we do without companies like Dunder Mifflin (The Office)--which provides "unlimited paper in a paperless world"!?
-Alison
It was interesting reading Coover's article (hardcopy, mind you) and realizing just how divided I am toward this "hypertext". After reading Coover's take, I came out of it feeling like hypertext is nothing but a fad, as Jim kindly put in his response, and will eventually end up in the can. However, I am still happily sitting on the fence and not ready to dismiss its potential just yet.
Do I think books are as good as dead? Nah. Is hypertext a life changer? Coover makes the point that hypertext is in no way a modern marvel, and I have to agree. He quotes the mistaken "hyperspace-walker" George P. Landow as saying, "It [hypertext] promises to produce effects on our culture..., literature, criticism and scholarship, just as radical as those produced by Gutenberg's movable type" (2). Neither Coover or myself agree with such a bold statement.
Who knows, maybe hypertext will end up playing second fiddle to the book and serving as a compliment. I mean, it is possible. The author of a book could very well implement some sort of scheme where the reader has to experience hypertext in order to better understand the character or the storyline. Just like the newly incorporated video explanations in Jeopardy used to help the contestants find the answer; The reader could get to a point in the book where they will need to access another source, in this case, hypertext (or some other medium), to better understand the character's behavior. It's no different than the interactive CDs that come with college textbooks.
It will be interesting to see if hypertext finds its way into the mainstream and sticks.
I agree that many do not like reading novels on the computer. Although, how we got this article was from the internet off of our computers. Technology is developing and will eventually be the top priority to have. The world is changing and technology is growing. I was glad to read Coover’s article because it shows that technology is doing just that, growing. And with it growing we are going to eventually be writing and reading novels on our phones. We already have the iphone where we get the internet. Soon we will be able to have Microsoft word downloaded to our phones to write/journal whatever we want. Our cell phones are with us every day and whomever will be journaling on their phone or authors will be writing their novels on their phone because it will be more convenient. I don’t believe technology will die, I believe it will evolve significantly.
I do not totally agree with what Coover is saying. Print is definately disappearing in outlets such as newspaper, and magazines. In my opinion the novel is never going to out of print.
There are some people that love that novels are available in hypertext and would actually prefer to read them that way. But I would guess most people woul rather have a hard copy of a book so they can curl up and read it.
I don't mind reading something short on the internet, but if it is longer than a few pages, I have to print it out. I cannot imagine reading an entire novel, and just sitting here starring at the screen for that long.
I believe there will always be print copies of novels available and many people to purchase them.
At this point in history, the book is still far more mobile than is a computer. A person can get "lost" in a novel anywhere, but most people in the world don't own laptops yet, and have to rely on where the computers are in order to read.
I do agree with the lack of permanence that hypertext lends itself. When something is printed on a printing press, the words cannot be changed. Not so for hypertext. I also agree how linking to other web pages can become distracting and overwhelming, and how it isn't a linear process to jump from link to link.
Still, I think the computer and its hypertext is the way of the future novel because of the multimedia capabilities like fonts, pictures, and animation. It's also going to be interesting to see what's more valuable in the future, when it comes to the novel: the natural resources the of the paper and binding or the energy required to power up computers.
Just like Gutenberg's printing press, the mere existence of hyper text will modify the way we read and follow novels. Whether that is a positive or not will be determined in how society changes its priorities.
-Bryan Burke
I was impressed by Coover's sixteen year old essay on the development of hypertext. Coover's perception of this growth and prominence of hypertext is very realistic as proven in more recent years. I, like the author both welcome and yet dread this new form of reading. From an optimistic standpoint, it's an electrifying idea that so many diverse articles, books, other literary works and various modes of communication can so conveniently be accessed via computers, cell phones and the Internet. Many people see this easily accessible information as an opportunity to learn, communicate and stay up to date with both social and worldly events.
While the convenience and closeness of information may be appealing, the way which humans obtain and absorb information will drastically change as a result of the hypertext movement. An interesting thought towards spacial definition in hypertext his how compartmentalized these transfers of information, communication and entertainment are. Perhaps one who must carry several novels for a comparative literature class wishes to simply carry a half pound laptop containing all their needed materials. Floods of people cross streets checking their bank accounts, texting their friends and listening to the latest music, which many most likely heard digitally as opposed to off of "vintage" radio waves. Perhaps the most extreme case of this consolidation of endless information is the Internet; the word itself is capitalized, as it is considered somewhat of a place. The Internet is something constructed, and can perhaps be seen as a place which was created, not simply undiscovered. As sixteen years have passed since Coover's publication of his essay, the era of hypertext has somewhat tarnished and antiquated books, CD's, paper newspapers and corded phones. While these tangible objects have become somewhat endangered over the last two decades, they will most likely never be extinct. If anything, the nostalgia of books will keep them alive.
I personally believe books will never die. I mean we have been through so many changes in our history and they have yet to die out. Yes our culture lives on "computers" (for almost everything we do is on computers...look at us now writing our responses to an article on a computer). But books can put your mind in so many great places.
But to play the devils advocate I love books when I have the time to read but a full time employee and student sometimes its just easier to look things up on the computer.
I will end with this I agree that technology has become such a huge part of our society but I disagree with the idea that books are going anywhere.
Before reading this article I had never heard the term "hypertext" before. As I began reading the article I was a little confused as to just what "hypertext" was and how I had not heard of it growing up in the internet age, being the tech savvy person I am. As I read on though I realized it was something like things I had participated in online previously though but had never labeled it with the name. When I was in middle school I wrote in online forums for "string stories" which were similar to the format of "Hotel". As I made that initial connection I began to realize that things like Wikipedia could also be considered "hypertext".
As a journalist, I am constantly faced with the demise of the newspaper and the birth and evolution of online journalism. Most in the industry initially fear it, but eventually embrace it.
The move to online information sources is exciting and offers an endless amount of possibilities. What I've come to realize personally is that the printed word is all about limitation. It's often and for the most part entirely one dimensional. You only have so many pages for rows of words and holes to fill with pictures in a newspaper. While just a click away is a universe worth of information, laid out thoughtfully, dotted and enhanced with slideshows and multimedia.
While I love the feel of newsprint or the smell of a well worn novel from the shelves of a library as much as the next person I'm excited for what the infinite abyss of the world wide web has to offer.
Robert Coover presents excellent examples of how the world of writing is changing. His article in the New York Times indicates quite convincingly that there is a shift happening within the field as supported by the existence of the exclusive course on "hypertext." Perhaps this will effect the novel, in my opinion, I do not foresee this saturating fiction as quickly as reference material. I feel that modern society embraces such advancement in technology that we will adapt certain aspects of literature to meet the demands for which these call for. I found Coover's portion of the article about the alien birthing bartenders example to be alarming. And I wonder how a novel such as Pride and Prejudice could have been created under the same circumstances, I can not imagine hypertext working for all genres, or for that matter being accepted by all readers. Although change is good, advancement has been the catalyst for great movements in literature but I don not believe hypertext is the END of the novel. Wrong I maybe, but that is my opinion.
Post a Comment