Jakobs is impenetrable to me. I thought I understood hypertexts until I read her piece. Now I understand nothing. I hope tomorrow's class clears some of this up.
Sosnoski, on the other hand, speaks to my soul. As a writer, with aspirations of publication, writing and reading lengthy texts on-screen is a part of my daily life. All of my word processing is done online. I read blogs, news and short fiction on my computer.
But I edit in print.
Essays, stories, poetry, articles. Whatever I am writing at the time. I print it out, mark it up, and type in the changes. And I've wondered before, in a distant sort of way, if that was a problem, or something to consider changing, but I've never given it much serious thought.
Now, though, it takes me back to last weeks discussion and my assertions about the significance of the way we write. I applied online writing to the idea that one for, has more or less merit than another, but now I am confronted not only with my own desire to signify the way I write, but with a critique of the way we read.
I contemplated starting this blog post by talking about my recent obsession with e-readers. Despite the presence of hypertext both on and off-screen in my life, this decision has been most inspired by the realization that moving my (tiny) library is going to be miserable. Books are heavy and take up a lot of space. A Kindle Fire can ride along in my purse (and lets me play Angry Birds).
But as I've begun shopping around for the e-reader I want once I'm gainfully employed post-college, I've encountered a bizarre cultural movement that coincides nicely with this article. There is rampant hate in certain circles of the internet for the idea that someone would dare to read on an e-reader rather than pick up a hard back book. To me, this seems someone egotistical and a little bit classist. To assume that someone is uneducated, lazy, or stupid for choosing the "less romantic" reading option is also to make the assumption that they have the money and space to buy and store those books, to move them. But a part of that reluctance also comes from the idea (as Sosnoski recognizes in his article) that this hypertext reading is less attentive and sloppier.
I also think that a percentage of these complainers are following the comp/lit fault line laid out by Sosnoski. They are reluctant to set aside what they perceive as the true way to enjoy and immerse yourself in a book and welcome a new technology for the amenities it offers; their reluctance has more to do with applied significance than practical function.
I suppose that this debate, like many we seem to encounter in this class, will only be solved with time and settling cultural norms.
Your post reminded me of a previous post on Kaitlyn's page, where she mentions that children are simply handed an eReader and it perfectly supplants the need for books, and so much more.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it made me think about the way we read. Books were made the sizes that they are for ease of reading - and eReaders mimic that physicality. However, eReaders are also acting as mini-computers, so by giving them functions that allow them only to be used as books, perhaps that is limiting. I guess I'm not being clear, but I want to get at the issue of the fact that eReaders are replacing books, but they aren't ultimately any different than what books were - we still read, still turn pages, make bookmarks, annotate, but its the same process.
Should or Can eReaders be designed in a way that enable our reading process to be more innovative, to help us learn in new ways, instead of still closing us in between the traditional hardback covers of the book?
I find it curious to observe the difference in reception between reading and writing technology. Even I--despite my rather uninformed technological state--am not oblivious to the division between advocates of eReaders and their (rather irate) opponents. It seems slightly hypocritical of them since they've all obviously embraced modern writing technology. They're using blogs, comment areas and other internet resources to voice their disgust at such a cold age of reading. It seems odd to think that reading on a screen can be considered controversial while writing on one is rarely questioned. Where are the supporters of the inkwell and quill? I suppose they might be out there, but if they're sincere we'll never hear from them online.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that print is the more romantic option considering it doesn't always get to engage all the senses. Online texts, and inter-text can flirt with more than just your eyes, they can engage hearing and create textures. Although print is often considered more romantic, it is because of the classic nature or age, yet we, culturally criticize older things constantly trying to stay younger/newer, so it becomes quite the contradiction to me. Maybe digital rhetorics are sometimes sloppier, but to me they seem more alive because they can move in new and exiting ways...in fact they can move whereas print texts can't. So maybe print is more "romantic" but complete digital texts are far more "erotic." I think the importance of hyper-texts is to combine the two.
ReplyDelete