Assignment 1.2

Posted by in Assignment 1.2

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?

I’ve been stewing about how I want to answer this question for a couple of days now, and I have decided that the best way to write about hyperlinking is to free-write and see where my thoughts take me. Here I go.

Hyperlinking can be understood as controlled digression, that is to say, in a formal publication the “hyperlink” takes place in footnotes, and particularly end notes. With end notes you follow the instructions of the superscript and flip to the end of a work (rather than allowing your eyes to merely skim the bottom of the page) either immediately to enhance your experience of reading and the opportunity to learn, or you can bypass them altogether.

(Sorry to everyone reading this rather obvious description!)

In a less formal platform (such as a freelance blog, or Facebook, or Twitter), the hyperlink takes on a less serious role. The hyperlink is completely autonomous and controlled by the author; it is completely up the the writer whether or not she wishes to include a link to a video of puppies just because she can, just as it is equally at her discretion to link her readers to other insightful blogs from her online English class. Bearing this freedom in mind, the reader is offered a 50/50 chance of choosing to see something to be considered for fun or for intellectual stimulation, and the writer is completely within her own rights to decide that direction. It is different from formally published institutions because of the formalities of editing. The end result is no longer the result of a single author’s fanciful thought, but rather a collaboration, or at least something composed with the goal of passing inspection.

With regards to storytelling, I think the hyperlink is an easily accessible internet aside. For example, when I tell stories out loud to my friends, or family, or coworkers, I tell reaaaalllllyy looooong stories full of completely useless and unrelated information. In fact, they often tell me this. And I keep doing it. And I am doing it now. And I’m pretty sure my listeners never listen to my entire stories. The fact that I can share a story (told formally or informally) online through the act of typing is immediately more structured than any story I would just spew organically. Even when I rehearse I sidetrack. When I type online, I can at least organize paragraphs or delete that last comma.

I suppose at the end of all that, I would still argue that “literature”, and “stories”, and “orality” are divisions based upon their potential consumption. Literature must be read, and is therefore written with the intent of readership, and is therefore subject to a lot of editing. Editing in a formal sense infers writing for a certain expectation in the reader. Editing in an informal sense suggests at least a small amount of organization and planning. Stories complicate the divisions because they hold the most open definition. A story can be anything from regaling what you did over the weekend to a fictional comment on an aspect of the world. They can be published by a publisher, posted online, or shared orally. A story to me, is an open definition for a reflection on the world, whether fictional or non-fictional. Orality is a verbal version of a story, and ties in to the notion of a hyperlink because it is so vulnerable to change. I don’t want to make it sound like I am suggesting that oral tales are less significant or impactful; what I am trying to say is that oral stories are more flexible in the exactitude of the spoken words. Words on paper are set type, whereas words spoken change slightly each time (whether in exact word or through inflection) or are rehearsed from a written work. Hyperlinks in any of these distinctions are simply a venue to channel extraneous thoughts.

Courtney McNeil would agree that it is important that I defined “literature” as differing from “stories” and “orality” in terms of their “status as medium” rather than “existing in competition with other media forms”.

Works cited

Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 17 Jan. 2014. <http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/>.