Susan Delagrange, e-mail response for 5/15/97 class:
(Please use back key to return to resource page.)
From: Susan Delagrange
In his workshop on using electronic forums in his 367, Scott DeWitt
proposed two models of navigating the Internet.
The first, which he called the Impulsive Model, was the process followed by
casual surfers--start with a NODE, make a LINK to another NODE, make a LINK
to another NODE, etc. Each of these nodes and links was accompanied by a
relatively uncritical, unexamined thought process he called SIMPLE TEXT.
These SIMPLE TEXTS are the focus of Scott's discussions with his students.
By employing Haas's "conscious noticing," he encourages his students to
form what he called an evolving SUPER TEXT--kind of a metatext that makes
the evaluations of the nodes and the decisions about links a part of the
whole. (Can't remember what he called it, but he decided against the Super
Model.)
Anyhow, my first read of EUPHORIA was an attempt to create a super-text, a
process I found extremely difficult. One problem was that my choices
weren't goal- or end-product directed. I wasn't looking for anything in
particular, just enjoying the view (odd metaphor, but apt--I didn't feel
like I was choosing, but rather that I was on a train, riding through
tunnel after tunnel, and fascinated equally by how different or similar the
landscape was on the other side of the mountain.) I do remember thinking
when I chose Dreams and More Dreams that my expectation was of less
internal coherence in the node itself and less relationship between where I
was and where I was going.
I also want to know more about George, so by the time I was finished, my
reasons for clicking links must have become more intentional.
The second time through, I looked more at presentation, and noticed some of
the things we talked about Tuesday--I had more trouble with the black text
on grey ground than I would have expected, and think maybe a more
comfortable contrast (medium green or blue on white?) would have been
easier. Of course, I'm the navigator, and could set my browser to
different background and text settings. But I find myself thinking, "No,
this is the way Vicki wants me to see this." Hmmmm. Shades of Sven. But
many hypertext authors seem to be controlling the look of their work,
forcing screen widths, colors, arrangements. Look at Moulthrop's "Color of
Television." David Siegel goes for ultimate control--recommends that every
page be an image, text and all.
Short vs. long text--like you, I enjoy the mix. The longer the text,
though, the less control seems to rest with the reader. But I respectfully
disagree with the reasoning behind your decision to put links at the end.
While Andrea was right in objecting to my abrupt intrusion into her e-mail
messages, doesn't a concern about "intrusion" in hypertext seriously
privilege the author's voice?
I'm writing to learn here, and this is off the subject, but did I just say
that, because we perceive our students to be less powerful, that our
response is to privilege their voices in the same ways we are saying it is
abhorrent to privilege the traditional, linear, canonical text?
Back to hypertext, Vicki, and some of your questions.
No, I never get "lost in hyperspace" in the vertiginous sense. I have
become so engrossed, though, in an interesting thread that I am startled by
how much time has passed. As Paul mentioned in his comment on Spare
Change, so much is available, right here in my dining room.
A quick final note--Johnson-Eilola quotes someone as saying that we are
moving away from traditional "either/or" models of reading and writing and
embracing the "and/and/and." I remembered Birkerts' snide
comment--"[Postmodernism's] combinatory momentum and relentless referencing
of the surrounding culture mirror perfectly the associative dynamics of
electronic media." When I read it, I thought, "Yes! That's the point!"
Haven't some of our most stunning insights come from unexpected
connections? Pasteur said, "Chance favors only the prepared mind." I
would agree that hypertext does not/will not/should not replace other forms
of literacy. But it does offer a different sort of preparedness, and it
_certainly_ provides the chance!