RATIONALE OF HYPERTEXT

S.Roche (sbr2y@faraday.clas.virginia.edu)
Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:21:29 -0400 (EDT)

In McGann's article he argues for hyperediting and hypermedia in the
literary world. He sees this move as desirable, necessary and logical.
And he has proven this by his own project, the RosettiArchive. Mcgann
feels that literary works have an ever-important "physcial character", and to r
eally learn from works, they must be available in a form which most
acuratly depicts their
original form. He cites ballads (Burns), etchings (Blake), paintings
(Rosetti),gravatational fields (Dickinson) as fundamental in understanidng
the textual representations of the authors we have known primarliy. The
actual evolution ofbook production and text design has also shaped the
codex (he says the evolution of the modernist movement is rooted in them),
and it too must be accounted for somehow. He sees hypermediums
as serving such funtions.
The traditon of representation uniquely through a book (up
until present) has been, inherently, a misrepresetnation. And since
society now has the means (means which are becoming more and more
accessbile) it is unjustfiable for the literary world not to shift to
hyper-mediums. Not only does it fail to truly represent the author's
work, but the book form becomes increasingly cumbersome as "the archieves
(all the criticsm and supplemetary texts accompaning texts) sink into a
sea of white paper."

McGann makes an interesting parrellel between the Net (and what he feels
an archive can achieve with literature), and the function of a library.
This reminded me of our conversation(s) about the relationship one has
with a book versus a hypertext version of a book. Is the library active
in the same way a book is in the reader-book realtionship? And can the
Net be substituted, or even an improvement on libraries? McGann would
argue yes. But what he was doing in the parellel was showing how the
INternet, "the archive of archives" was designed mirroring libraries: both
are decenterd, nonhierarchical an an intact, expandable source of
structured information. Does the Net seem this way?

In setting up archives and other hypertext forms of books, plays, poems,
critiism, he wants them to be expanable. He feels that hyperEditing
does not require a central text for oraginzing the hypertext of documents
This begs two questions: if
some logic is given to a period/artist/genre when arranging it (and that
someone must make this judgement), and that someone or some org.must
maintain the site/archive. Who is chosen for such roles and how can they
do this job without basis'?

McGann's Rationale is grounded in the fact that the character of literary
works goes beyond the capablites of the book. There are certain
non-textual aspects in works which can't be conveyed through text alone.
Doesn;t it them follow that he would argue against word processing? It
seems the author is also an artist, and that the confines of text-only
functions handicap their work. What i'm saying is that by taking the
human element of writing/reactioning/editing/etc and fighting that word
processors should only be used, it seems to limit the artistic nature
of past writers (etc) that which he is trying to illuminate.

In the second para. McGann says: "It is clear to anyone who has looked
carefully at our postmodern condition that no real resistance to such
developments(information technologies) is possible, even if it were
desirable." Why doesn't our pm
condition illicit no resistance (or what about it)?

Do his demands for widespread computerization seem resonable and/or
logical/benficial to you?

see everyone friday-sarah