Bonnie Reidinger, e-mail response 5/15/97 class:
(Please use back key to return to resource page.)
Hi Vicki,
I was going to write that I'd just read EUPHORIA
but "read" doesn't seem to be the right word to
apply to hypertext. I don't mean that in a derogatory
sense--just that hypertext seems more like movement
through text than reading to me--a trip of sorts.
I was curious about your plans for EUPHORIA. How much
of the novel do you envision including? Will there
be an "end" or series of choices for the end?
To answer some of your questions: Yes, I found
repeating links to be annoying. No, I didn't
want to develop Elaine's character, change or add scenes
or events. Nor, did I want to construct while or after reading.
And that has nothing to do with the content or writing in
your hypertext story or with my interest in the story,
but rather with the way I feel about hypertext and writing in general--
which is not Poststructuralist, Deconstructionist, PostModernist,
or Social Constructionist. It's *your* story and *your*
characters and if I want to write a story I'll write
*my* story with *my* characters. It's not a question of
being too much work. I think you--like every other writer--
bring your unique vision and perspective to your work and
to the world. The things many of the essayists we have been
reading praise about hypertext seem to have more to do with
politics than with literature. They seem very threatened by
ideas that have not been ground into the pap of the lowest
common denominator or democratized into mediocrity. I am perfectly
comfortable with and not in the least disempowered by reading
what someone else has written. I can believe it, like it
or dislike it. I can write a rebuttal if I wish. I don't have
to change what someone else has written.
None of which is meant to reflect on your story or
project. I think it's a very worthy thing to do and that
there is a place for hypertext, but I agree with what you said in
your posting. Stability isn't intrinsically evil--just out of fashion.