Hypertext

We have discussed in class that readers of hypertext are no longer just readers; they can be readers-writers. Readers have some freedom with hypertext that the author cannot control. Readers can determine their “journey” on a website – decide the direction they will go and which links they will click on. Even though authors create the links for readers to utilize and even possibly envision the path that they would like readers to take, that journey is up to the reader. The reader may or may not receive the correct message of the author by following their own path. Because of this ambiguity, authors may fear that readers will not receive the correct message they are trying to convey in their site. This could also be true of print text, but the author in print text seems to have a bit more control of the reader's journey of receiving the message.

As Nancy G. Patterson [1] states, “Hypertext readers, however, can challenge a text immediately, or as immediately as the reader can write a response and link that response to the author's text. This placement of text within a larger domain of text places the reader and the writer in a kind of dialogue that cannot happen as easily in the world of paper and ink.” This type of interaction as Patterson suggests really does not exist. Readers cannot alter another's text on the web. But readers can add their comments in a comments section and a dialogue can ensue between other readers and also the author him/herself. Allowing others to add text to your text would be very risky. The author would then have no control over their own document on the web. This complete lack of control could prevent many authors from writing on the web! Even when authors give their readers the opportunity to post comments on their site, many authors have an application to first approve the comment before it is posted. Unfortunately it is not wise to give readers complete freedom to alter and/or add to another's website.

Even allowing readers to post comments can be risky. Gawker.com, an on-line New York newspaper, featured an article, Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments [2] in July 21, 2008, that stated, "Comments are thought to be an added value to a newspaper's site—providing another reason to read. You come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion. The only problem is, there is no interesting discussion. Almost never. Not even from the mythical supersmart New York Times readers." Sheila, the author, goes on to say that when others are allowed to comment on a very personal article, it can be a disservice to the author. No one "wins"; maybe just those that received their "5 minutes of fame" (not 15 - definitely more short-lived than that!) by causing a commotion by sharing inappropriate comments.

Now of course, not everyone makes these kinds of inappropriate comments. But as we all know, it only takes one or two to spoil it for everyone, and before you know it, that one luxury that was enjoyed by many has been removed because of a couple "bad apples." Sheila added the following quote by Benjamin Dolnick [3] in her article, "If you ever want to lose faith in humanity, read any comments section on the internet." Ouch, that hurts, but unfortunately has a bit of truth to it. This just confirms what Robert Fowler states in Hypertext [4] that may not ever happen or hopefully won't - that hypertext allows readers to “annotate existing texts, add new texts to the network, and create new links between texts, often with remarkable power to change the appearance of everything by manipulating windows and changing fonts.” This text by Fowler though was written in 1994. He hoped possibly that hypertext was moving toward this goal, but thankfully it hasn't.

In Hypertext and the Role of the Reader and Writer [5], Patterson continues her thoughts about hypertext:

"Some theorists like Landow and Lanham believe that the simple presence of a cursor on a screen alters the reading experience because the cursor is a physical means of inserting the reader into the text, it is a physical reminder that the reader is always present. Lanham believes that because text resides on a hard drive that readers approach it differently. The fact that electronic text is no longer caught between the covers of a book, that it only becomes present when a reader calls it up on a screen, invites the reader to come closer to the text, to write the text anew each time he or she engages with it."

I also concur with Landow and Lanham that the “simple presence of a cursor on a screen alters the reading experience.” Now the reader is engaged and active. He/she is no longer just a reader, but a reader-writer. An example would be Coldwater Creek's website. one of the retail commercial websites I did a rhetorical analysis on. Readers can add their own views under "Write a Review." This allows readers to not only contribute to Coldwater Creek's website but also influence Coldwater Creek's other readers. Many times the comments in this section have deterred me, a Coldwater Creek shopper, from purchasing or not purchasing a garment.

Landow in his book Hypertext 3.0 states on page 58: "All hypertext systems permit the individual reader to choose his or her own center of investigation and experience. What this principle means in practice is that the reader is not locked into any kind of particular organization or hierarchy." This occurs when authors design their website with many links. This then allows for authors to relinquish control to their readers and for the readers to decide their own journey. Landow refers to the reader as "active," but the author of Hypertext and the Role of the Reader [6], describes the reader as "deliberate." She says, "the hypertext reader [is] deliberate, as one who deliberately reads a text according to his or her own interests or organizing principles."

This brings up the issue of control. McAdams and Berger [7] offer some interesting observations about control. “The writer maintains control over the act of writing and creating in hypertext,just as in the act of writing for printed media. The writer chooses the words, examples, anecdotes, facts, scenes, characters. The writer imposes order in hypertext just as in print. When the writing is finished, however, the writer's control ends.“

I agree with this. Readers have control over the text they read. As I mentioned, readers can decide the path they take and how long they will stay on a certain site. This can also happen with print text. Readers of print text can decide how long to read but there is only one way to follow a text - from top to bottom, left to right. But there are some exceptions to that. Some readers like to read the end of the book first and/or skip around. So in a sense, this principle could apply to print text too. But these type of readers who don't read a book the "conventional way" tend to be in the minority.

Martin Ryder [8], in PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEANING: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation, has this to say about the author’s control: "Once I place written text online for public access, I relinquish control over that text: how it is structured, how it is prefaced, how it ends, in which contexts it may find itself. The value-added dimension of hypertext is the ability to link any piece of information from any context to any other context. The original work and its authorship are rendered inconsequential. The roles of reader and author are drastically changing in this electronic age. Authors who find discomfort here will undoubtedly cling to the print medium where authority, control and ownership are well established."

This article by Martin Ryder was written in 1995. At that time, these types of issues were a concern with the new medium of hypertext. But this would only happen in an open hypertext system. In class we discussed in depth about the problems of Wikipedia and the freedom there is in changing its text. The question of authority was also discussed. Who determines who has the correct authority to determine certain text? That is why these types of hypertext systems are not very common.

Print Text

I believe both author and reader have some type of control with print text, but the author has more control with print text than with hypertext. Authors determine the print text and readers do not usually wander off the page of print text into another book or medium. Readers read from left to right, top to bottom. There is not very much stray from that – unless readers decide to skip around in their reading, or, heaven-forbid, read the end of the book before they naturally arrive there. There is more of a structure with print text versus hypertext. In print text, even though the author may have more control of the text that the reader reads, the author cannot control the reading experience of the reader. Also, another area that the author cannot control is what the reader brings to the text (past experience, interest, knowledge). So in a sense, readers do have some control with the print text, but not as much as in hypertext. For more insight about the “control issue”, read McAdams and Berger's article The Control Paradox[9].

The printed text sits still, with no changes happening as the reader reads. The permanence of the print text can give the reader a comfortable, relaxed feeling, knowing they can trust what they are reading (that it is not changing as they read it.) This is unlike the experience of reading hypertext. The reader is aware that information on the web is constantly changing, so what they read one minute may not be totally accurate the next day. An example of this is how citations are noted for research papers. The date the information is accessed from the web is a critical portion of the citation. This is indicative of the ever-changing web.

Fowler [10]notes some interesting comparisons with hypertext and print text:

"Hypertext challenges presuppositions of print culture such as:

(1) authors can be distinguished from readers;
(2) a text is the property of its author;
(3) a text is (or should be) fixed, unchanging, unified and coherent;
(4) a text should speak with a single, clear voice;
(5) a text has a beginning and an ending, margins, an inside and an outside;
(6) the center of a text, of a group of texts, or of anything else, is fixed, stable, and single;
(7) a text is (or should be) clearly organized in a linear, hierarchical structure;
(8) generally speaking, an author writes by himself, and a reader reads by himself;
(9) the act of writing or reading is (or should be) ethically and politically neutral.

The possibilities of hypertext, in expanding print text, are numerous. Hypertext definitely has challenged print text in many ways, just as Fowler noted above.

---

Works Cited

[1] Patterson, Nancy G. "Hypertext and the Role of the Reader and Writer." 20 March 2010 http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna/hyperreading.html.

[2] Sheila. "Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments." Gawker.com. 21 July 2008. 8 May 2010. http://gawker.com/5027287/why-newspapers-shouldnt-allow-comments.

[3] "Sulzberger Kid Hates Internet." Radaronline.com. 27 October 2008. 8 May 2010. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/07/sulzberger-kid-hates-internet.php.

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

[5] Patterson, Nancy G. "Hypertext and the Role of the Reader and Writer." 20 March 2010 http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna/hyperreading.html.

[6] Landow, George P. "Hypertext and the Role of the Reader and Writer." 20 March 2010 http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna/hyperreading.html.

[7] Berger, Stephanie and McAdams, Mindy. "Hypertext - The Control Paradox." 20 March 2010 http://www.journalofelectronicpublishing.org/hypertext/control.html.

[8] 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.

[9] Berger, Stephanie and McAdams, Mindy. "Hypertext - The Control Paradox." 20 March 2010 http://www.journalofelectronicpublishing.org/hypertext/control.html.

[10] Fowler, Robert. "From Orality to Literacy to Hypertext: Back to the Future?" 20 March 2010 http://homepages.bw.edu/~rfowler/pubs/secondoral/oral.html#anchor70690.


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.