Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter-VII
Conclusion
Technology has made inroads into the field of literature that primarily deals
with human experience. Numerous innovations have enriched it but none has
significantly affected the structure of text. It was only with the advent of computers
that man felt the need for devising new ways of writing text and experimenting with
its structure. In fact this new technology has provided us the tools for manipulating
text. This led to the discovery of a novel way to organize text and the concept of
traced right from its beginning. Presently a number of technocritics assert that
hypertext has great potential as a literary medium and avant-garde artists can tap this
potential to create literary works that will undermine the concepts of origin,
originality, hierarchy, linearity and center. But when Vannevar Bush sketched out
plans for an associative information retrieval programme called the memex which
ultimately culminated into hypertext, he didn‟t have literature in his mind. He was the
presidential science advisor to President Roosevelt during Second World War and
head of atomic bomb project (USA). He had proposed this new technology keeping in
view the military needs. Hence it was the war and not literature that led to the
emergence of computers and computer mediated technology in the first place. This
fact is significant in itself as many critics are sceptical of hypertext‟s literary potential
on the ground that it emerged in response to the needs of armed forces rather than to
understanding of it. Its oft-quoted definition is the variety of text that is not
302
opinion it is a novel way of reading and writing. It is a medium that offers readers a
variety of choices to follow and have a variety of experiences depending upon the
choices made. They argue that each encounter with hypertext is a fresh experience for
the readers.
hypertext in their own ways and they argue that each interpretation has equal validity.
chosen few to interpret literary texts. They point out that hypertext thrives on
center. In their opinion it is a dynamic text open to mutations and additions and hence
But Espen J. Aarseth and many other technocritics do not seem to agree.
Aarseth first of all contends that hypertext is simply a variety of cybertext and
according to him it has not substantially changed the way we read texts. He argues
that hypertext certainly is a new of way writing rather than reading with active links
and the user‟s ability to reach different places or altogether new documents by simply
clicking on linked or highlighted words. More over when Michael Joyce differentiates
between constructive and exploratory hypertexts one can easily deduce from his
discussion that reader‟s freedom from linear sequence which is often held up as
303
hypertext‟s cognitive and political strength, is a promise easily retracted and wholly
Time and again many technocritics have questioned the dichotomy between
codex and hypertext. They argue that this dichotomy has created a new pair of binary
technocritics like Paul Hackman also argue that rather than considering hypertext as
remediation of print. Rather than celebrating one media at the expense of the other it
is more appropriate to concentrate on interaction between the two. This will not only
serve to undo the opposition that has been created between them by some
technocritics but will also significantly assert the crucial role played by print tradition
for making sense of hypertext as anything but a series of fragments. If new media is
described as radically different from the old with attributes solely determined by the
and political and intellectual liberation then it will only give rise to technological
technocritics.
Aarseth is quite right in pointing out the need for a new set of terminology for
borrowing terms from the field of literary criticism. The application of theories of
literary criticism to this new emerging empirical field of study without reassessment
of the terms and concepts involved is equally wrong. This practice will turn the
translation that is not perceived as such by its very translators. This is so because
hypertext like other varieties of cybertext like adventures games, is not a text the way
304
the average literary text is a text. They produce verbal structures for aesthetic effect
but in addition to that they have an added paraverbal dimension also. While reading a
hyperdocument one is always reminded of the voices not heard, the inaccessible
strategies and paths not taken. The ambiguities of hyperdocuments are always
different from the ambiguities of a linear text. Hence it is necessary to evolve a new
set of vocabulary that is unique to the realm of cybertextuality and deals with the
critique of hyperdocuments.
In this regard one can cite the example of the phrase non-linear linkage that
this phrase that claims to be the opposite of it. Moreover whatever may be the linkage
structure, act of reading must take place sequentially. One can read only word by
word. They find the term multilinear more appropriate as it makes linearity also a
Hypertext has the ability to accommodate both text and non-textual elements
like audio and video clips. Hypertext documents also make use of digital techniques
such as laser beams, biostates, network flows, game structures, multimedia web
installations and experimental videos. Their rich linkage structure also reduces the
cognitive distance between any two points in the text. Hence instead of slogging
through the pages one can reach the destination simply by clicking on lexias. Thus to
a limited extent, readers can exercise their creative power in the composition of the
text they encounter in hypertextual environment. This is true that readers are free
leads the technocritics to claim that this new text media dissolves the distinction
differentiation that are associated with hypertext work to obscure the structural
medium to the submerged voices and makes them audible. Its advent is hailed by
numerous scholars and they opine that it presents an optimal medium for dialogic
dialogue. Technocritics equate lexia with utterance and consider it to be the primary
kind of text. They argue that each thread of it is a fragment of conversation that is
They also argue that hypertext is well in accord with the current wave of
thought as presently more emphasis is being laid on bringing to fore front the
females, African, Asian and Afro-Asian and post-colonial writers in the syllabi of
reputed universities signals the paradigmatic shift in attitude of West towards other
countries and cultures of the world. Perhaps there is a realization now that no culture
contended by critics like Kristeva and Cixous is derived from the “Chora” which
writing emerges from “Chora,” the place that we know from semiotic but forget when
we enter symbolic. This practice of writing, in her opinion, will subvert the hierarchy
father. She has shifted the stress from Oedipal to pre-Oedipal phase as “Chora” or the
fluidity, and multiplicity that are often associated with feminine writing are inherent
feminists as well as other marginalised groups. They contend that it challenges the
accommodate dissenting voices and is open to the anarchic forces of bisexual desire.
It is hence according to them a balanced and not a biased text. It seems to them
capable of striking a balance between any kind of binary opposition. They opine that
it can strike a balance between different racial, cultural and gender related issues
Afternoon, a Story, they argue that hyperfictions which are a type of hyperdocument,
offer very limited freedom to its readers. Though it categorised as interactive fiction
but the fact is that while navigating this fiction a reader feels herself to be as much at
the mercy of the constructor as in any difficult text, although in a different way. The
307
place where the text refuses to default one cannot do anything but to abandon the text
and start anew. Also there are guard fields that help the author to manipulate the
reading paths or the sequence of lexias that readers will encounter. An interactive
narrative may imply some kind of user-directed story generator but when one
navigates Afternoon, it becomes evident that it does not fit into that description very
well. It offers a very limited point of view to its readers. The Storyspace software in
which Afternoon was written allows the readers to follow only those sequences that
have been laid down by the writer. This software does not allow its readers free
itself capable of producing social and historical change seems to be a „ahistorical‟ and
reconsider the practice of evaluating hypertext and other categories of cybertext using
and concepts the technocritics are neglecting the most fundamental question of what
exactly hypertext is. The issue is that why can‟t something that it not a part of some
establish the legitimacy of the field of hypertext but the extent to which they will
series of narrowing choices by simply clicking on the screen with the mouse. This
allows for much more convenient use than the codex where transition between two
308
non-adjoining places can be slow and distractive. But for such a trait to be useful, the
text in question must contain the need for such for such a transition as an intrinsic
figure. Of course there is no denying of the fact that there are interesting side effects
and novel possibilities that result from the migration from one medium to another, but
hypertext in the opinion of many technocritics is not all that different from the old
world of print, pen and paper. Jumping around and among the text fragments cannot
The difference between paper texts and computer generated texts is not very
clear. In fact one wonders if at all any such difference exists and if at all exists, it
voice their dissent is also refuted by many technocritics and marginalised groups
hypertext for providing a medium to suppressed voices, one must consider the number
or the percentage of population that has access to computers and computer mediated
technology. A majority of the population of the so called Third World countries leads
a life of penury and dejection. They struggle to make both ends meet. The condition
of the women and children in these counties is even worse. Most of the women are
illiterate and lead a life devoid of even basic amenities. How hypertext and computer
mediated technology can make any difference to their lives. What can hypertext offer
Feminist critics, as some technocritics argue, may make productive use of the
characteristic of multiplicity associated with hypertext but this practice does not make
multiplicity a de facto critique of patriarchy. This multiplicity may very well work
against the feminist goals. By reducing women to fragments like womb, breasts or
309
legs etc. hypertext will perpetuate what it is meant to subvert. One cannot afford to get
which will make print as important a medium for expressing female subjectivity as
fragmentation on the ground that it is now only that women have started to gain some
sense of the self. Associating fragmentation with the concept of self at this stage will
only serve to undermine the achievements of the feminists. Some feminists perceive
because most of the technocritics are either whites or males. Some feminist critics
subverting it.
hence rather than voicing the concerns of marginalised groups or of the people in
general, it can blast the majority into silence. In countries like China where
technologies have a very limited role to play. Technocritics like Bolter and Nelson
contend that hypertext will further enhance the process of gradual erosion of social
more cautious about these revolutionary claims. He also considers the possibility that
a decentered culture might overwhelm the critical voices, yielding not a rainbow
coalition but a majority blasted into silence by the explosion of electronic discourse.
Such assertions cannot be ignored while assessing the claims made regarding a
medium‟s potential for bringing about radical social and political transformations.
310
and other marginalised sections of society. Its capabilities and associations can prove
to be very useful tools in the hands of a skilled craftsman. But that does not suggest
that the other media like codex are incapable of achieving the same affect. By
projecting hypertext as better than codex will only give rise to debates of particularly
fetish nature. Hyperfictions can only become relevant to our current world and their
rescued from a life on the fringes of literary study only if they are not projected as
Hypertext and other computer mediated technologies mark not a terminus but
a transition. Some technocritics contend that that computer is simply a medium for
carrying literacy into a new age. These arguments do not undermine the significance
of the this technology but simply assert that though hypertext does not represent “end
of books” as proclaimed by Coover still the foundations of print media are bound to
be shaken a bit by this new media. This hybrid, smooth-striated writing space of
hypertext may well be a first step towards cyborganism which is perhaps the ultimate