hypertext fails to communicate Author’s thoughts
This blog will attempt to analyze how hypertext fails to communicate the thoughts and ideas of the author.
In Chapter 3 Bolter states hypertext is a “remediation of print that can be compared to an electronic footnote (Bolter, 2001). However, a footnote adds to the understanding of the primary text, deepening the comprehension of the message, while hypertexts lead the reader away from understanding as the amount of information we encounter in the electronic labyrinth is too much for the mind to assimilate. It is true- the reader does indeed have the opportunity to (re)turn to the original text, but the seduction to keep clicking can be too much as there is an illusion that one is deepening one’s comprehension.
Next, the virtual pathways created by hypertexts move the reader further and further away from the original intent of the author. By fracturing the reading process- and thus our focus- a hypertext can be compared to an annoying heckler. It is a rowdy pest that attempts to redirect the reader’s attention away from the speaker and lead them down a rabbit hole of information.
Bolter argues that hypertext is actually a “redeployed and refashioned” remediation of early print such as hieroglyphs (Bolter, 2001). However, this argument fails in accounting for the necessity to actually learn the sound/symbol/meaning relationships of hieroglyphics. In the same manner, it can be argued that entering to the electronic labyrinth of hypertext also requires tutelage in order to remain connected to the original text. Otherwise, the medium fails the thoughts of the author.
Let me take a moment to acknowledge that the human mind does indeed branch out in to networks of interconnected thoughts as argued by Bolter, However, the hypertext branches out at first but then soon goes down a completely different pathway of information that could potentially continue forever. Each hyperlink having the potential to do this, then leads to further branches and networks, that eventually lead the reader completely away from the original text. So, rather than circulating back to the original subject – as our brain would do- hypertexts each become a new subject, which in turn fails the author.
I realize I have been bandying terms like author and original subject around, so let’s take a moment to look at what is meant by the term author? According to Foucoult:
An author’s name is not simply an element in a discourse ….it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory function. Such a name permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differentiate them from and contrast them to others……the fact that several texts have been placed under the same name indicates that there has been established among them a relationship of homogeneity, filiation, authentication of some texts by the use of others, reciprocal explication, or concomitant utilization. The author’s name serves to characterize a certain mode of being of discourse: the fact that the discourse has an author’s name, that one can say “this was written by so-and-so” or “so-and-so is its author,” shows that this discourse is not ordinary everyday speech that merely comes and goes, not something that is immediately consumable. On the contrary, it is a speech that must be received in a certain mode and that, in a given culture, must receive a certain status- (Michel Foucault, 1969) .
Keeping in mind Foucoult’s definition, the author is then accorded a certain privilege as the originator of a body of work. With this definition in mind, hypertexts muddy the waters and essentially fragment the role of the author by sharing ideas of other authors within a network of interrelated ideas. Although the sharing can be seen as something good, ultimately it too fails to communicate the thoughts and ideas of the author.
In conclusion, one can’t help but wonder if hypertexts are an answer to the whole issue of copyright laws. Since one is required to reference all borrowed ideas, the physical look of a text would soon become disrupted and fractured with references. By adding hypertext, an author can circumvent this laborious process by sharing the ideas of others while still maintaining a flow in the writing/ reading process- even if ultimately it disrupts the flow of thought.
References
Bolter, J.A. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. [2nd ed.]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Foucoult, M.( 1969). What is an author? http://www.movementresearch.org/classesworkshops/melt/Foucault_WhatIsAnAuthor.pdf
Hi Rave.
What a great take on Hypertext! As one who often gets led down the “rabbit hole of information”, I completely agree with the dangers you outlined of the non-linear pathways presented by hypertext-filled documents. You refer to the “seduction to keep clicking”, and I can’t help but blame to the monetizing of information through eye-catching ads and unrelated materials, more than I might blame structured hypertext put in place by a document’s author. However, the reality is present, so we press forward.
(For this response, I will focus on the linearity of traditional text, vs the inherent non-linearity of hypertext.)
I am very much a linear (but distractible) thinker, and thus my siding with your proposition. I wonder though, would my agreement be tempered if my natural predilection was towards non-linearity. You compare hypertext to “an annoying heckler”, yet in the eyes of a stage-comedian, (who one might argue is the most non-linear thinker around), a heckler is also an opportunity. An opportunity to explore, “where does this rabbit hole go?”. A heckler is a challenge, that if approached with skill and caution, can lead the comedy to new heights. Could not hypertext do the same for the reader?
As education within the new BC curriculum becomes about exploration and process, and less learn-what’s-on-the-page, and we start to deeply consider the generation of learners fully immersed in what Bolter (2001) refers to as hyper-media, I wonder if we need to embrace non-linearity.
Linear thinking can be defined as, “a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.” (Dictionary.com) We see this clearly followed in traditional texts where readers complete page one, before moving on to page two, and so on. Finding an official definition of non-linear thinking can be a little more problematic. McCumber (2009) has perhaps the most succinct definition with, “Human thought characterized by expansion in multiple directions, rather than in one direction, and based on the concept that there are multiple starting points from which one can apply logic to a problem.” When I consider the students that I teach, and their involvement in three different sports, two musical instruments, and extra language classes on weekends, I can’t help but assume that their lives are somewhat defined by McCumber’s take on non-linearity.
Admittedly, taking this approach, in text or otherwise, represents a risk. A possibility that the reader won’t return to the author’s intent, or that the learner will get lost in the rabbit-hole’s labyrinth. We must then, like the heckled comedian, approach hypertext with caution, and teach the necessary skills to not only survive, but thrive within the hypertext environment.
References:
Bolter, J.A. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. [2nd ed.]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dictionary.com. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from Dictionary.com website:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear-thinking
McCumber, C.. Do We Think Differently? Linear vs. Non-Linear Thinking. Retrieved from http://chuckslamp.com/index.php/2009/04/11/non-linearthinking/
I really enjoyed reading your blog post Rave. As I was reading Bolter’s Chapter 3 (2001) there were moments when I felt that I must be missing something substantial with hypertext as I don’t always find it helpful, and quite frankly sometimes it is downright distracting. Like you, I do see how Bolter (2001) connects the idea that hypertexts are in some ways like the interconnections within the human mind, but I was also troubled by this thought. I really liked your paragraph :
“Let me take a moment to acknowledge that the human mind does indeed branch out in to networks of interconnected thoughts as argued by Bolter, However, the hypertext branches out at first but then soon goes down a completely different pathway of information that could potentially continue forever. Each hyperlink having the potential to do this, then leads to further branches and networks, that eventually lead the reader completely away from the original text. So, rather than circulating back to the original subject – as our brain would do- hypertexts each become a new subject, which in turn fails the author.”
Yes, the human brain makes connections in a web pattern rather than one that is simply linear, however what Bolter fails to acknowledge is that these connections that our brains build are not all equal. The connections get strengthened the more often we head down the same pathway, and eventually the connections that are no longer used are “pruned” within the brain. The problem with making the analogy of hypertext being like the brain is not in the way the connections are made, but in how they are sustained. With hypertext there is no “pruning” so to speak. The links are there to follow, regardless as to how loosely they are connected to the original thought. There isn’t a hierarchy of hypertext, no strengthening of connections the more often it is deemed useful. We, as readers, must be able to determine the value and make the connections ourselves. While this is entirely possible, I do find that it is sometimes where my students
(aged 11-13) get led down the rabbit hole of hypertext. They follow the link on one page end up on a semi related page and end up making connections on subject matter that don’t exist, or assuming that the connection is stronger than it actually is. It is also through following these hypertexts students get overwhelmed with the amount of information they are seeing. Quite often I see that students end up on pages where the writing is too advanced or academic and confusion sets in (this seems to be the case most often in subjects like Science which have highly specific jargon attached to fields of study). I realize that it is important to give credit to those people from whom you have borrowed ideas, but at some point this direct access to all of the information is overwhelming. We live in a time where we are in information overload. With the click of a button, we have access to too much information on a subject that our minds can process. What I liked about footnotes, as opposed to hypertext, is that it gives me just the right amount of information to explain a concept in greater detail. If I am curious, I can always find the original reference material to provide me with more detail. Like you, I am not entirely sold on the idea of hypertext remediating print.
Bolter, J.A. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. [2nd ed.]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hi Rave,
I really enjoyed reading your post as it gave me a new perspective on hypertext, one that I hadn’t considered previously. Your comment about how hypertext can lead the reader away from an understanding really resonated with me and had me reflect on whether or not hypertext is really conducive to the development of deep learning. It has been argued that hypertext-based learning can provide opportunities for readers to make connections between concepts as they gain information from different perspectives. Also, when learners have sufficient background knowledge, hypertexts can offer segmented pieces of content needed to close in information gaps, thereby increasing the level of understanding. However, I can’t help but question the efficiency of this type of learning environment for learners lacking sufficient prior knowledge to make those connections in order to fill in the gaps. In a printed book, knowledge can be built in a sequential order, such that the reader is provided with enough information to make connections as he or she progresses through the text. In contrast, hypertext environments offer the reader a rough starting point, but with each additional click, the learner becomes increasingly disconnected from the original text and the author’s thoughts. Referring back to my experience in reading The Electronic Labyrinth (Keep, MacLaughlin, & Parmar, 1995), I remember feeling overwhelmed with the vast amount of new information each link brought me to. Furthermore, I was worried that I would inadvertently overlook a link along the way that would provide me with important information. Perhaps this feeling stemmed from the fact that I had little prior knowledge on the topics; therefore found it difficult to make meaningful connections between the fragmented pieces of information.
Shapiro & Neiderhauser (2004) discuss the importance of integrating prior knowledge with new information in order to obtain a deeper level of understanding. Therefore, it is imperative that the reader has sufficient background knowledge to properly choose the next link in order to build upon what he or she already knows. Although hypertext-based environments promote active interaction with the content (Bolter, 2001), motivation to seek new information, and the restructuring of prior knowledge, the reader is not required to do so in order to navigate the medium. As such, I would have to agree with your statement that the simple act of clicking from one text to another could give the reader a false sense “that one is deepening one’s comprehension”.
Bolter, J.A. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. [2nd ed.]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keep, C., McLaughlin, T., & Parmar, R. (1995). The Electronic Labyrinth. Retrieved from http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/elab/
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, p. 605–620. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/23.pdf.