Questions #7
At the beginning of this lesson I pointed to the idea that technological advances in communication tools have been part of the impetus to rethink the divisive and hierarchical categorizing of literature and orality, and suggested that this is happening for a number of reasons. I’d like you to consider two aspects of digital literature: 1) social media tools that enable widespread publication, without publishers, and 2) Hypertext, which is the name for the text that lies beyond the text you are reading, until you click. How do you think these capabilities might be impacting literature and story?
Although it is indisputable that technological advances in communication have vastly changed the information that we are able to obtain on all levels, from basic recipes to violent propaganda, the most notable change I feel, is the speed at which all and any communication can be spread. While there are obviously many positive things about this, such as the addition of countless book, journals, manuscripts, and so much more onto scholarly sites such as the UBC library website, which allows for so much more knowledge to be shared by a huge number of people, there are equally as many negative factors. Because anybody can post anything, we lack a sensor of sorts. This is NOT to say that I don’t believe in free speech, just simply that many people do not seem to understand that just because it is on the internet, does not mean that it is true. Think for example how many times we, as students, have been reminded not to use Wikipedia. Even in this class it has been stated at least once. The fact that I feel it is redundant to state this, does not change the fact that if no one ever cited wikipedia, it would simply not have to be stated. Therefore, even educated university students are fooled by the draw of easily accessible “fact.” Chamberlin states that “words make us feel closer to the world we live in.” (1) Although this is true on so many levels, especially when discussing stories, or shared experiences, I feel that this has become such a overgrown phenomena. Singh, Mani, and Pentland discuss in their article “Social Persuasion in Online and Physical Networks” the impact of persuasion and the differences between online and offline pressure. (1)
Hypertext creates another issue. Because one can chose if they would in fact like to see what lies beyond the blue underlined word, the initial intention of the author is skewed. The author intended for the reader to click and expand on the information which they already provided, the reader gains control of the text by deciding if that piece of information is relevant without even perhaps knowing its content.
The online world of information is vast and marvellous, however it is a scary place as well. Not only can we not control any of the information which is provided by the “authors” but the readers also have more power. This power struggle is social medias breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and it has so much more power than we will ever be able to comprehend.
Jennifer Heinz
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. “A New History of Reading: Hunting, Tracking, and Reading.” For the Geography of a Soul: Emerging Perspectives on Kamau Braithwaite. Ed. Timothy J. Reiss., 145-164. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2001. 145-164.
Singh, Vivek K., Ankur Mani, and Alex Pentland. “Social Persuasion in Online and Physical Networks.” Proceedings of the IEEE 102.12 (2014): 1903-10.
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks blogging on such an interesting question. I chose question #1 for my second blog but this one was a very close alternative. I think we absolutely have to consider how communication has evolved and continues to evolve in light of growing technology. We now have as Erika says “social media tools that enable widespread publication, without publishers”. It means that anyone and everyone can have an opinion! It also means, as you mention, increased speed in how quickly information is made available (highspeed connections). I would add that technology has also increased access points to information (laptop, smartphones, tablets etc), increased range/availability of information (everything and anything is being put on the internet), and increased resources to consolidate information off the internet and filter into meaningful formats (facebook, twitter, hootsuite etc). I think that these developments and the growing competition between social media organizations has benefited users in that they can now harness, digest and distribute information in targeted and extremely efficient ways. I think it’s important to note that these social media sites also allow you to measure the performance of your accounts. For example, Facebook provides metrics on the following: http://www.facebook.com/help/336143376466063/
• The number of people your post reached
• The number of people who clicked your post
• The number of people who liked, commented on or shared your post
• Total number of video views and more details about viewing behavior.
This means that users can now be very strategic in who they want to target their messages/stories to. One other positive benefit I feel worth mentioning is the network of support that social media introduces. For example, my sister runs an online dog company that has an army of facebook followers/customers. She recently had to bring her furry loved one in to an ICU at a local animal hospital here in Vancouver. It has been a very emotional time for her but she has had an immediate response from her facebook friends – 40-50 comments a day – offering love and support and stories of similar experiences. There have been real time interactions with people from all over the world. I see how this networking tool can immediately help people cope and gain strength to manage difficult situations.
Having said all this, I wholeheartedly agree with you that for every benefit there is a corresponding negative consequence. I can see how this forum can bring unwanted responses as well. Not everyone is spreading positive messages and there is little accountability for what people are saying and doing. This has lead to negative outcomes such as trolls, cyber bullying, vigilantism etc.
Hypertext, is another feature of modern technology that is altering how we interact with the stories we find on line. It has changed our traditionally static sources of information into very dynamic platforms that offer endless links to additional information in various formats – audio, video, text etc. I
Both of these communication devices are changing how we interact with the literature and stories we experience. Social media sites and hypertext offer a richer, broader learning environment than our traditional formats and they are clearly proving that hierarchical distinctions between the two are not acceptable.
Hi Jennifer,
This is definitely a dense topic! As both you and Stuart have noted, literature is evolving rapidly due to the internet and social media. One thing that your blog triggered for me was the realization that literature is becoming more condensed and less thorough because of popular websites like facebook, twitter, instagram, imgur, etc.. One thing all of these things have in common is that if you want to be noticed you have to be interested in a very small amount of characters. This kind of text has resulted in people with very short attention spans. If someone is trying to promote an article or story, the same thing applies to the title of that literature, where a snappy headline is crucial in telling the reader that what they have to offer is worth reading, otherwise interest is lost quickly. So my question for you is this: In your opinion, is the ‘www’ making literature and stories better because of the vast amount of information at our disposal, or is it hindering our ability to move forward?
Sarah C.
Hello Jennifer – thank you for your answer to my question. I hope you will find the time to take a look at Jasmine’s answer to this question:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1/student-blogs-2/
It would be interesting to see you two start a little dialogue around your different perspectives 😉 Thanks
NOTES:
Your link is not working: the page fails to open, can you see if you can fix this please and thanks.
You have misspelt assignment in your title. You may also want to work to create titles for your post that are a little more imaginative.
Hi Jennifer,
I completely agree that the speed of communication has increased exponentially with the Internet. Not only can we communicate with others much faster, but we also have to process information more quickly because we are bombarded by it on the Internet. You mention that we can be “fooled by the draw of easily accessible ‘fact'”. I wonder, despite all the misinformation out on the Internet, do you think that the availability of information allows us to develop critical thinking skills or learn to build a filter to ignore the negative aspects of the web? Your take on hypertext is also interesting! I think I emphasized the power of the author in creating the hypertext, but you see it as the readers having the power to subvert the author’s intentions. I’m not sure if you thought that this was a negative aspect of hypertext. In relation to your article, do you think that ads and stories specifically tailored and targeted at a person are a positive thing because they seem more relevant to the person?
Thanks for your blog and for allowing me to see a different perspective!
Jasmine Chen
Hi Jennifer,
Your thoughts on hypertext were very interesting. Like Jasmine, I also saw hypertext as an extension of the author’s control over the text – that he/she created a series of pathways for the reader to pursue to give them a deeper/better understanding of what they are trying to say.
But you’re right – readers can and do choose which links to follow. While this power does subvert the author’s intention, I feel that this also makes the text more personal for the readers. It brings to mind those ‘Choose your own adventure’ books for kids – where your choices tailor an experience that’s unique for you. Could this perhaps be applied here? By choosing which links to follow, does this significantly impact our experience and allow for a more open interpretation of the text?