Hypertext
Today, we possess the technology to eliminate books and log on to PCs to access literature via the World Wide Web, forged not from ink and paper, but rather from bits, bytes, megahertz, and pixels. Online, modern writers have recently begun experimenting with the use of hypertext, electric-blue words that when clicked on with a mouse, link the reader to other “related” texts. Hypertext was, “supposed to revolutionize the way we tell stories,” and perhaps a revolution has occurred in the past decade, but these azure links have dangerously eliminated a sense of order and closure that literature demands (Johnson 592). Therefore, we must forestall this conversion of books to pixels, for on the Web, our most valued written work will most surely be corrupted by hypertext.
Ever since humans developed the first written languages, composed the first works of literature, established the first universities, and awarded the first Pulitzer Prize, linguists, professors, and writers alike have emphasized the importance of a definite organization and a solid conclusion to one’s writing. These elements allow written works to be coherent to the reader. Hypertext undermines both of these key concepts, stripping a, “work of its proud material trappings, its solid three-dimensionality...subject[ing] it to fragmentation” (Birkerts 480). The insertion of links mid-sentence can easily distract and confuse the reader, for if he or she decides to click on the underlined word or phrase, it is likely that the text to which he or she is transferred will be a discontinuity. Furthermore, when a reader is perusing “electric” text, he or she might not ever read past the inserted hypertext; it is much easier to click on a glowing link by an arrow than to drag a rodent halfway across a pad to land a preemptive blow with one’s finger on a scroll down button. With the introduction of hypertext, readers can “enter cleanly and strategically at any number of points; [they] can elide passages or chapters with an elastic ease that allows [them] to forget the surrounding textual issue” (480). This premature departure from a written piece is dangerous to both the reader and the author. When the full work is not digested, it is likely that the reader will be unable to decipher the author’s message, which he or she went to great pains to impart.
It is clear that hypertext devalues literature as it disrupts the flow of an author’s writing and encourages readers to only take small “bytes” out of a piece. However, some might argue that these links actually enhance an author’s work as they allow the reader to make connections he or she would not have otherwise seen. An added benefit of hypertext is that it enables one to instantaneously snatch additional information on related subjects. Several authors have become infatuated with this new electronic style of writing and actually rely on hypertext to provide their readers with background information critical to comprehending their work. In this case, readers must follow a trail of links to fully grasp the meaning intended by the author. Yet, what happens if a reader becomes frustrated with clicking on blue, underscored words and decides to read, without deviation, to the end of the material? Then, he or she will miss vital information, intentionally left out by the author with the expectation that the reader, not the writer, will do the necessary research to decipher the text. Although these links were invented to enrich the experience of an individual who is reading literature on line, their true effect is to leave the reader feeling disconnected. to leave the reader feeling disconnected. to leave the reader feeling disconnecetc.
