This is in response to last week's discussion of "Creative
Hypertexts."
Although I am fascinated by the refreshing capabilities that
have arisen as a result of hypertext as a medium for
creativity, I cannot seem to divorce myself from the idea of a
"book" as something that has tactile qualities. I do not mean
merely the sense of turning a page, and holding it in my hand;
I also like the fact that I can SEE how much I've read and how
much I have left to read. My biggest complaint stems from the
inability of some web sites to convey such information to tell
a browser just how "big" they are. Certainly the nature of a
creative hypertext such as _Victory Garden_ allows the reader a
great deal of flexibilty in determing WHEN exactly the reader
(browser, navigator, whatever) is "finished" with the work.
BUT...
As a student of literature, for me this is itself a problem.
We may discuss the theory behind such a work, its general
theme, and even certain examples form the "text;" but, I ask,
how are we to discuss the work as a "WORK", per se--a complete
work of literature/art with defined boundaries (this is
obviously my own opion)? The _Victory Garden_ that I read may
not BE the _V.G._ that any other given reader may read.
Different reactions are obviously encouraged by the nature of
the medium otherwise some other would have been chosen, but how
are we to reach any sort of "common" message realtive to such a
text. My problem with these texts is purley from an
interpretive stadpoint more than on any other basis (I DO enjoy
reading them).
With specific reference to Falco's "Sea Island," I must also
voice my frustration with the repetitive nature of hypertext.
I felt that I was going around in circles reading his poetry,
hoping to get out somehow. This is what I susupect that so
many authors we have read have described as "disorientation."
The Electronic Labyrinth, indeed.
Adam Winters
winters@virginia.edu
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~ahw2m