John Tolva argues that since words in print and words in electronic formats mean the same thing, the only difference between hypertext and print text is perception. I don't agree. Looking at the digital nature of hypertexts, though valuable in terms of recognizing the fundamental technology of computer generated works of art (be they writing, visual, etc.), is like looking at texts and painting as essentially the same thing: ink or paint on some kind of surface. Just because a poem and a painting are both comprised of a substance placed on a surface, doesn't mean they are "essentially identical." After all, is not the letter "u" simply a series of particles of ink (the ones and zeros of the primitive world) arranged in a specific way that constitutes what we have designated as the letter "u" in our alphabet? And doesn't a slightly different arrangement of those particles of ink constitute another letter entirely, say "v"? My point here is that the medium does not affect the way we think of words to the extent Tolva suggests.
The important difference between print and hypertext is not the fundamental technology of how the letters and words are displayed (ones and zeros or particles of ink), but what readers can do with the text. If text is "that which is woven," the difference between printed and hypertexts is in who does the weaving: in print the author is solely responsible for weaving the text, in hypertext the reader takes on the responsibility (with the help of authors who provide suggestions to the reader on possible directions--and this can be multiple authors in multiple works).
No comments:
Post a Comment