Textual Theory, 3/29
Laura Ann Young (lay4a@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU)
Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:59:21 -0500 (EST)
> 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. -Winters
>
> Hmmmmmm... Ok, who said that linearity can't exist in
> hypertext? and who said that there are arguments which
> just can't be made in any way other than a linear progresion?
>
> What exactly happens when someone makes an argument in a linear
> sense? Someone asks a question, "Was Shakespeare a good writer?"
> Someone says, "yes." And voila, we commence. So then we
> establish what it means to be a good writer, evidence for those
> assertions about goodness in writing is presented, evidence
> that Shakespeare fits into those categorical assertions is
> presented and we come to a conclusion. Good=such and
> such=Shakespeare and by those laws of geometric equality which
> we all learned once, we see that Shakespeare=good. Argument
> complete.
>
> Now, supposed we mixed all those parts around and put them into
> separate sound bytes on different nodes and such with links in
> between. Would we come to the same conclusion that
> Shakespeare=good? We've approached the argument in a non-linear
> fashion and my suggestion is that the same argument would most
> likely be extracted, but luckily so would a thousand others.
>
> I agree that mixing things up in some non-linear format
> simply to unmix them and extract the same information is a
> waste of time. The point is that you'll get the information
> that you were thinking about and a whole lot more. Only if you
> believe that your argument is the only one to be made will
> you believe that your argument needs to be made in some kind of
> contained,linear form which shuts out other possibilities. Now this is
> of course what I'm doing here, and I apologize for seeming
> hypocritical.
>
> Even as the boundaries of a work change, as we've discussed
> often in class, the boundaries of an
> argument will change. This will propell us towards some
> deconstructive notion of the complete death of absolutism,
> but perhaps in addition to infinitely expanding the boundaries of
> argumentative conclusions, we'll see some kind of argumentative
> shakedown, in which only the most central, cogent, universal,
> and (in that sense "true") conclusions will wash ashore after the
> storm.
>
> It's a nice thought, but bring something waterproof.
>