(2) from the section entitled THE BOOK: "Recently, some writers have
announced the end of The Book, considering it the model of a readerly text
and thus the antithesis not only of the open-endedness of hypertext, but
of writing itself."
Support or refute this statement.
(3) from the same section: "REaders of The Book are thus conceived as
passive recepetors of the undiluted truth its author intended."
Two things about this sentence strike me:
(a) with hypertext, the reader is no longer a passive participant, as
he/she is with books. Discuss any implications of this that you feel are
importnat.
(b) "the undiluted truth its author intended"--what is the effect on
you, the reader, of not having a definite "author" to hold accoutnable for
what you read in hypertext. Does it make you more hesistant believe what
you read?
(4) Ansley asked last week when and how we know we've read enough of any
assigned article. Indeed, according to the section entitled CLOSURE,
hypertext is characterized by the absense of definite closure, as we have
come to know it. THe authors of this section seem to think this is a
pretty good thing. Do you agree? For help, think about their assertion
that "in making each reading entirely different from the previous,
hypertext fiction helps underscore the limitations of traditional forms of
closure and elicits new forms of pleasure, pleasure not from the
inevitability of an ending, but from the multiplicity of openings."