Hypertext

The question we have discussed in class is: Is anything original with hypertext? Readers link other author’s texts to their own which makes their text a collection of many authors – or a “collaborative writing”, as Martin Ryder [1] says. Ryder draws on Landow’s writings in his article, "PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation:

"Scholarly writing can be considered as 'collaborative writing', since the writer draws heavily from the work of others in the process of constructing original work. Within hypertext environments, all writing becomes collaborative writing (Landow, 1992). The author who is writing now acknowledges the presence of other texts and other authors within a virtual presence of collaboration."

Take for example this Argumentative Hypertext assignment from our ENG 508 class. Dr. Katz wanted the class to draw on other author's works and to "plagarize at will," but to remember to always give credit to those we utilize in our work. This assignment is a classic example of a "collaborative writing": I cite other authors' views on hypertext and print text, but weave my own ideas in and through the assignment. The lines in hypertext are usually blurred between the author, collaborator, publisher, text and reader.

Fowler [2] also refers to Landow to further explain “collaborative writing”:

"Within a hypertext environment all writing becomes collaborative writing, doubly so. The first element of collaboration appears when one compares the roles of writer and reader, since the active reader necessarily collaborates with the author in producing a text by the choices he or she makes. The second aspect of collaboration appears when one compares the writer with other writers-- that is, the author who is writing now with the virtual presence of all writers 'on the system' who wrote then but whose writings are still present."

And also -

"Landow's considerable experience in collaborations with colleagues and students leads him to claim that hypertext nurtures a genuinely collegial community of learning, not only by putting teacher and student closer to the same level, but also by promoting interdisciplinary work and the integration of a scholar's teaching with her or his research."

I can see how this "nurturing experience with hypertext in the collegial community of learning" can happen. I have actually sensed it with this Argumentative Hypertext assignment. By quoting and commenting on articles that were written by the "big names" in the Hypertext community, I feel like I am (in a sense) on "their level," as collegues would feel as they were working on a big project together. This is how a group project or presentation would work: everyone bringing together their best work and putting it together to produce an outstanding piece of work. In the business world, these type of group projects happen frequently because of their amazing outcomes.

On page 143 in Hypertext 3.0, Landow declares the following about hypertext: "Hypertext thus allows and encourages collaborative work....The first element of collaboration appears when one compares the roles of writer and reader, since the active reader necessarily collaborates with the author in producing the particular version of the text she or he reads by the choices she or he makes."

Landow comments about the composition process on page 125: "Hypertext, which creates an active, even intrusive reader, carries this convergence of activities one step closer to completion; but in so doing, it infringes on the power of the writer, removing some of it and granting it to the reader. These shifts in the relations of author and reader do not, however, imply that hypertext automatically makes readers into authors or co-authors-except, that is, in hypertext environments that gives readers the ability to add links and texts to what they read."

In regular hypertext documents on the web, readers can sometimes add comments to postings by the author, if the author has their web page set up like this. When readers are able to add comments, they have now changed from a reader into a reader-writer because they have contributed to the author's web page. Most hypertext documents do not give the reader the opportunity to add comments and links to another's web page. These type of documents are referred to as "open hypertext" documents. Normally authors do not want their work tampered with on the web and therefore do not use this type of hypertext document.

Ryder [3] states in PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation:

"This removes a formal barrier between writing and publishing that traditionally restricts creative thoughts from public view. A page of writing need not grow into a full article or a book before it becomes public. By exteriorizing memory, we convert knowledge from the possession of one to the possession of more than one (Landow, 1992 p.174). By detaching writing from the notion of self-identified property, we can return literacy to the more native, human-inclusive realm of orality."

"But for many adults, the idea of presenting unfinished work to the public is disturbing. They are compelled to withhold "publication" of their work until it is in a finished form. As we observe online contributions on the Web, we see constant changes, revisions, and updates to homepage documents. This is true even for the most established Web pages (e.g. CERN ). The desire to bar public access to works under development may be a vestige of a previous publishing paradigm. As users become more familiar with the "under construction" status of most online resources, the sharing of in-process work may be another trait that returns writing to the spontaneity of an oral culture."

Martin Ryder [4] posed an interesting thought about hypertext and the ease of publishing on the web. Many times authors of printed text wouldn’t think of publishing their works until it was “perfect” and finished. Now it does not seem to bother hypertext authors to publish their website on the web when it is still “under construction.” Furthermore, judging by the many “dead” links on websites, along with the last time many websites have been updated, it is no wonder why some information on the web is not very accurate or up-to-date. If a writer is going to publish on the web, I believe it is important to keep the information and links accurate and current.

Print Text

The composition process of the printed text is more complex and intricate, having to go through several hands – author, publisher, designer and editor. Once the text has been printed, it cannot be changed again, until it is time to update it. Not so with hypertext. Anyone can compose hypertext, and it definitely does not go through many steps to be published, as with print text. One of the positives of hypertext composition is that many who want to be published - can; the down side is, if it is that easy to publish on the internet, does the value (and authority) go down with the product? We have discussed this in class, and I feel the published hypertext work is not as valued as the published print text. I know the long process of getting a book published. When there are many steps to the process, including a selection process of those to be published, I believe there is more respect for the final product. Quality is higher also with print text because of less quantity. As with commerce, the more demand, the value of the item increases. Too many of the item, the demand decreases and the value does too.

Tashian [5] also pointed out the storage capacity between print text and hypertext. In his article, which was written in 1997, he states, "Because the density of information on a computer is far greater than that of a book, the Internet already holds more data than any physical library." That was 13 years ago. So practically, hypertext does take up less room than print text and is more green. I know most offices are trying to become paper-less as much as possible because of storage issues and the cost in printing. Not only that, but when documents are on the internet, they can be updated without having to send the printed text back to the press. We have seen this happen at Bradley University; even though there are many people in the offices that wish they still had the paper copy because sometimes it takes too long to find where the information is on the internet! But all in all, it initially takes time to locate information on the internet and in the long run, it is wise for offices and text to move in this direction.

Landow, in Hypertext 3.0, on page 66, refers to the limitations of print culture. He notes that until we first understand the power of the book and make ourselves aware of how it was formed, he wonders if we can ever be able to "pry ourselves free from some of its limitations?" Many readers will say they appreciate the print text but acknowledge that it does have its limitations.

---

Works Cited

[1] Ryder, Martin. "PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation." 20 March 2010. http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_95.html.

[2] Fowler, Robert M. "Hypertext." 20 March 2010. http://homepages.bw.edu/~rfowler/pubs/canon/Hypertext.html.

[3] Ryder, Martin. "PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation." 20 March 2010. http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_95.html.

[4] Ryder, Martin. "PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation." 20 March 2010. http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_95.html.

[5] Tashian, Carl. "Will Computers Replace the Book?" 1997. 20 March 2010. http://tashian.com/carl/docs/compbook/.

Return to Top of Page


Click to return to the Argumentative Hypertext page.

Click the mailbox to send me an email.
Tell me what you thought of my analysis.
Click the houseto return to my home page.