>
> > 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?
Linearity can exist in hypertext, but then the question
arises: what's the point? Hypertexting something linear is
equivalent to adding a link at the bottom reading "next page"
and including no other options for the user. IMHO, that's not
actually hypertext at all -- hypertext (for me) implies making
other options available to the user - giving them a choice for
where to proceed next, and when. These options don't
necessarily have to lead the user around in circles (as so
many of the readings we've had seem to do), and in this sense
then they might have a type of linearity, but they are still
distinct froom the kind of linearity involved in a traditional
essay on Shakespeare.
[some stuff deleted]
> > 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.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. What you're really
talking about is the user imposing their thoughts, and their
ORDER, on the information. Those who choose certain links
will get a presentation, and hence an opinion regarding that
information, that is certain to be different from the
opinions of those who chose a different path. Rather than
ending up with a thousand views of the information, I would
argue that every user leaves with one, unique interpretation
of what has been presented. Whether or not this
interpretation is the "right" one intended by the author
depends on whether such a correct interpretation even exists
-- I don't think that a non-linear work could produce in
every user the same interpretation conceived by the author.
This goes back to the issue we discussed earlier in the
semester, about the author relinquishing some of her
authority to the readers, who make their own decisions and
impose their own order. I think that assuming that some
right answer exists, or that there is some correct conclusion
that is to be reached by anything presented nonlinearly, is a
mistake. But now I think that I'm agreeing with you after
all... :)
> > 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.
Oh, no, I guess I am disagreeing after all. By allowing
readers to impose their own order and make their own
conclusions, I think that opinions will inevitably disagree
and no "true" conclusions will be reached because none exist.
Andria Thomas