Some part of that naïveté arises from the fact that we seem not yet to have found the net-native structure that will be as flexible and inviting to individual readers as the codex has been. What we lack is not the means of moving from imprinting ink on paper to arranging pixels on screens, but the means of organizing and presenting digital texts in a structural sense, in a way that produces the greatest possible readerly and writerly engagement, that enables both the intensive development of an idea within the bounds of the electronic text and the extensive situation of that idea within a network of other such ideas and texts. Developing this format is of vital importance, not simply because the pleasure it can produce for readers will facilitate its adoption, but because it promises to have a dramatic impact on a wide range of our interactions with texts. As Roger Chartier has argued,

If texts are emancipated from the form that has conveyed them since the first centuries of the Christian era — the codex, the book composed of signatures from which all printed objects with which we are familiar derive — by the same token all intellectual technologies and all operations working to produce meaning become similarly modified.... When it passes from the codex to the monitor screen the ‘same’ text is no longer truly the same because the new formal mechanisms that deliver it to the reader modify the conditions of its reception and its comprehension (48-49).

Those conditions of reception and comprehension, and the intellectual technologies that will be put to use in the production of further, future texts, are the true stakes of imagining new structures within which new kinds of digital texts can be published.


3

Hypertext is one of the few modes of radical experiment in textual form to which the digital has thus far given birth. This networked data structure, the invention of which is generally credited to Ted Nelson and Douglas Englebart, created the possibility of dramatically reorganizing text in net-native ways, de-linearizing and interlinking the text both within its own boundaries and in relation to other such texts. Numerous literary authors and critics saw the future in early hypertext publishing, envisioning a means of creating a new, more active relationship between the reader and the text. On the one hand, such technologies succeeded in making manifest what had always been latent in the reader’s encounter with print: “Hypertext only more consciously than other texts implicates the reader in writing at least its sequences by her choices” (Joyce 131).[3] In this, hypertext became the fulfillment of the ideal form of the codex. On the other hand, hypertext also promised a radical restructuring of worldview, of “intellectual technologies,” as Chartier suggests, by lending its readers a new set of metaphors through which to understand the world. Thus, J. David Bolter suggests of hypertext’s structure:


6

There is nothing in an electronic book that quite corresponds to the printed table of contents.... In this sense, the electronic book reflects a different natural world, in which relationships are multiple and evolving: there is no great chain of being in an electronic world-book. For that very reason, an electronic book is a better analogy for contemporary views of nature, since nature today is often not regarded as a hierarchy, but rather as a network of interdependent species and systems (105).

In leaving behind the codex, in eliminating the “great chain of being” enforced by the book, such critics suggest, hypertext enables a new enlightenment to dawn, resulting in, among other things, the leveling of the previously hierarchical relationship between author and reader, elevating the reader to full participation in the production of the text’s meaning.

Posted by KF on 22 July 2007
Tags: Uncategorized

Total comments on this page: 9

How to read/write comments

Comments on specific paragraphs:

Click the icon to the right of a paragraph

  • If there are no prior comments there, a comment entry form will appear automatically
  • If there are already comments, you will see them and the form will be at the bottom of the thread

Comments on the page as a whole:

Click the icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)

Comments

No comments yet.

Mark Bernstein on paragraph 4:

“Generally credited to Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart” is a strange locution, suggesting that you believe this is not the correct, or entire, story. If you have an alternative historical thesis to argue, present it. If not, why cast doubt on the contributions of these scholars?

25 July 2007 6.35 am
KF :

Actually, I don’t have any alternative thesis to argue, nor am I casting doubt on Nelson and Engelbart’s contributions to the field. “Generally credited to” only means to suggest that the invention of anything as complex as hypertext takes multiple, and often simultaneous, discoveries, and that attribution becomes a more difficult thing.

25 July 2007 8.03 am
Richard Pinneau on paragraph 4:

Your “generally credit” phrase is also how it’s stated in wikipedia (FWIW). [I went there looking for any contrary evidence.]

29 July 2007 7.01 am
Dan Visel on paragraph 5:

When Bolter says “There is nothing in an electronic book that quite corresponds to the printed table of contents,” what exactly is he saying? Is he describing the electronic books of 1991? It seems to me that if you’re locating books in an abstract space, you certainly could create something that corresponds to a printed table of contents in most ways - see, for example, a PDF that’s been formatted with a table of contents, or any number of HTML book projects. Certainly an electronic book could be devised that a printed table of contents couldn’t describe, but to say that there’s nothing that corresponds to a printed table of contents seems far-fetched; tools could certainly be made.

31 July 2007 7.01 am
Bob Stein on paragraph 5:

I think he must be referring to the hypertext novels he and others were writing in the Storyspace environment.

31 July 2007 7.02 am
KF on paragraph 5:

Yes - this is from Writing Space, and is very much about the Storyspace mode of hypertext.

31 July 2007 7.02 am
Dan Visel on paragraph 5:

Does his argument still make sense then? In a broad sense I think he’s right - electronic space is a tabula rasa and there aren’t implicitly structures like tables of contents. But tables of contents aren’t inherent to codex books either: they’re more a convention that’s developed over time. (Bob always points out that even something so obvious as page numbers didn’t appear in printed books until 50 years after Gutenberg.) Storyspace-style books were the convention at the time he was writing; they’re not really any more. Are they worth having as part of the argument?

31 July 2007 7.06 am
Bob Stein on paragraph 5:

I’m not entirely convinced by the “hypertext” argument. In a lot of ways you could say much the same thing about the leap from the scroll to the codex in the sense that the shift to the codex made the book a true random access device which certainly empowered the reader to read in whatever sequence they wished. And given that you demolish the hypertext argument so beautifully in the next section, I think you might hint here that you don’t really buy it either.

31 July 2007 7.08 am
KF on paragraph 5:

I’m a bit torn here. On the one hand, I clearly don’t buy it, either, at least not as hypertext actually played out. On the other hand, the radical restructuring that hypertext attempted really did pave the way for the nonlinear writing systems that followed, like blogs. So I want to indicate its significance, while pulling back from those early claims of the revolution it was enacting - particularly the politicized aspects of that revolution.

31 July 2007 7.10 am
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI