I'm covering the Guyer reading "Written on the Web," which
supplemented this week's reading. . .if you haven't read it
yet, then do so.
I suppose the first, and most obvious question to come out of
this reading is what are the consequences of Guyer's complaints/
observations. She concludes that the insufficiency of the Web
for literary/ artistic spatial purposes is gradually being
overcome by new browsers, and implies that eventually the Web
may "catch up" with what she expects/ desires. I, however,
would present three possibilities:
1) Guyer's conclusion (see above). The Web will eventually
"catch up" with more advanced hypertext systems.
2) The Web eventually returns to its roots and is used only for
straight dissemination of scientific/ commerce information--
"art" is confined to more powerful Hypertext systems like
Storyspace or Hypercard, which don't have to worry about
cross-platform accessibility and LCD readership. This is an
extremist illustration, but gets the point across.
3) Fiction on the Web (and other literary Web genres) grows/
mutates to the constraints of Web writing (like Guyer's
description of <LINK Name=">), while other hypertext fictions
adapt to their spaces. . .fiction will become as much part of
the medium as the content and interface, like the way some
artists might paint the same still life using different
painting and canvas techniques.
I'd also like to criticize Guyer's concept of "forming" fiction
with the reader (the example of the kindergarten kid and the
ellipsis). However, this will take a lot more than an e-mail,
and requires feedback, so I'll save it for class tomorrow.
-- Kevin Troy http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ktt4d