I write the following discussion of this weeks assigned
readings in hopes that it will provide some basis to begin
discussion in my absence. Although I am not really sure
whether what we are most concerned with here is the content of
the hypertext essays which we have just been reading (the FRE
in Metaphoric Rocks... for example?), or rather just the
exemplification of the hypertext essay in general. I will
mention elements of both.
In discussing The English Poetry Database McGann asserts that
its policy is to print better-known poets, from editions that
are out of copyright. The Database would have done much
better...to have made its determinations about editions on
scholastic rather than economic grounds. This is a point to be
well noted. I am sure that many of such comprehensive archives
are faced with the similar problem of sacrificing quality and
even quantity for legal reasons. BUT... The current issue, it
seems, is a purely economic one. Although publishing on the
web is itself relatively (highly?) economical, when that
publishing is used to REpublish something that ALREADY exists
as a TEXT, that publishing becomes more expensive. The fact
is, there are reasons for copyright laws. Until the internet
offers some form of pay-per-view offer, or until current
publishers of paper TEXTS decide that they dont want to make
money (right), this will never be feasible. Perhaps there WILL
be a redirection of publishing energies toward the web in the
recent future. But is it really worth it to be REpublish
something that already exists in paper form at great cost to
(WHO)? (I cringe at the response this might bring). It is
impossible (in my opinion) to imagine that any time in the near
future there will be some kind of postmodern hypertext
revolution in which publishers will turn solely to the net.
The problem, as I see it, is that the thing that make the WWW
so great is what must also limit it. This may be obvious to
you, but it is something that I have just myself realized and
thought Id bring up. THERES JUST NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN IT.
Dear Hypertext Class-
I write the following discussion of this weeks assigned
readings in hopes that it will provide some basis to begin
discussion in my absence. Although I am not really sure
whether what we are most concerned with here is the content of
the hypertext essays which we have just been reading (the FRE
in Metaphoric Rocks... for example?), or rather just the
exemplification of the hypertext essay in general. I will
mention elements of both.
In discussing The English Poetry Database McGann asserts that
its policy is to print better-known poets, from editions that
are out of copyright. The Database would have done much
better...to have made its determinations about editions on
scholastic rather than economic grounds. This is a point to be
well noted. I am sure that many of such comprehensive archives
are faced with the similar problem of sacrificing quality and
even quantity for legal reasons. BUT... The current issue, it
seems, is a purely economic one. Although publishing on the
web is itself relatively (highly?) economical, when that
publishing is used to REpublish something that ALREADY exists
as a TEXT, that publishing becomes more expensive. The fact
is, there are reasons for copyright laws. Until the internet
offers some form of pay-per-view offer, or until current
publishers of paper TEXTS decide that they dont want to make
money (right), this will never be feasible. Perhaps there WILL
be a redirection of publishing energies toward the web in the
recent future. But is it really worth it to be REpublish
something that already exists in paper form at great cost to
(WHO)? (I cringe at the response this might bring). It is
impossible (in my opinion) to imagine that any time in the near
future there will be some kind of postmodern hypertext
revolution in which publishers will turn solely to the net.
The problem, as I see it, is that the thing that make the WWW
so great is what must also limit it. This may be obvious to
you, but it is something that I have just myself realized and
thought Id bring up. THERES JUST NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN IT. At
least not yet. Right now, almost everything that exists on the
web is free, with a handful of exceptions. Until the Internet
arrives at the point where there are enough
readers/users/browsers to support a pay-per-view type of
publishing, it cant really ever hope to gain money. That puts
the burden right now of publishing scholarly works on the web
solely on academia. This is a good thing, but it does (as we
have learned) cost money. Look at the costs of the Rosetti
archive, or the Blake archive. While in a perfect world we
could, as McGann says, make determinations about editions of
texts on scholastic rather than economic grounds,
realistically, we can not--at least until we have passed this
time of transition...
I think that this is what Moulthrop is referring to in the
following quotation from Imagologies: There is no sense
preaching to the converted. Our dilemma is that we are living
at the moment of transition from print to electronic culture.
It is too late for printed books and too early for electronic
texts. Along this boundary we must write our work.
(Imagologies, "Telewriting," p. 5).
Moulthrop continues: Even when scramble we of syntax English)
sentence (especially re-imposes reader in re- linearity
interpret in order to the the the.
Despite its heavy jumbling, the sentence above can still be
understood with a certain amount of effort. Using familiar
associational cues like subject-verb agreement ("we scramble";
"reader re-imposes") and likely phrase combinations ("even
when"; "in order to"), a proficient reader should be able to
piece out a translation. Even with rules of normal sequence
suspended on one level, the sentence is still intelligible
because it remains sequential on a finer scale -- that of
individual words or tokens.
Mixing it point what is, ask I, all if you want really do to
original reconstruct sense its? (What is the point of mixing
it up, I ask, if all you really want to do is reconstruct it in
its original sense.) While this is obviously an extreme
example, this is how I often find myself feeling when reading a
hypertext--Moulthrops Shadow of an Informand article for
example. Im still not sure I finished it. I can see that
hypertext is useful for some types of creative fiction,
research, and perhaps even large bodies of work that can be
broken down into reasonably sized large) chunks of material.
In my own defense I do see PLAINLY that Moulthrops point is to
show that we need to practice hypertext instead of just
discussing it. His hypertext essay IS appropriate for
discussing hypertext itself; how are we ever supposed to get
THROUGH that transition phase (myself included) if scholars
dont lead us in the revolution. The purpose of the hypertext
essay is to explore the boundaries defined by the medium in
general. Essay-- a short composition; to test the nature of.
But can you imagine writing any other kind of essay (one on
Shakespeare for example). Some arguments just have to be made
linearly. Call me old fashioned.
-- Adam H. Winters winters@virginia.edu