Author: Frank Clarke (e-mail at:
FrankClarke@aol.com )
Date: 05/18/2000
In 1965, Ted Nelson coined the word "hypertext”, using
it to describe the concept of electronically produced non-sequential writing,
which did not yet exist in an applicable sense. His efforts at the development of a practical application of
his hypertext concept eventually became something called the Xanadu project. The
Xanadu Operating Company was owned for years by Autodesk (a company that created
cutting-edge animation software), but, in one of those “stranger than
fiction” twists of fate, Ted Nelson’s Xanadu Operating Company was
eventually discarded by Autodesk, and Mr. Nelson never actually produced any
hypertextually-oriented software. Nelson’s
self-published “Literary Machines” is, however, still considered essential
reading within the field of hypertext. “Literary
Machines” includes the text of Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think", an
article published in 1945 which posits an automated "MEMEX" (memory
extension) which would allow human memory to be augmented by mechanical means. Bush’s article is considered by many (including Ted Nelson)
to be the first envisioning of what would eventually become hypertext.
To
understand how hypertext can be used to teach writing as process, one must first
understand exactly what hypertext is. In
a very broad sense, hypertext is any text that is non-linear in nature. Using only that as a definition is not enough.
As Dr. Hardy Cook pointed out to me in a casual conversation, if we use
only that reductionistic definition, we must include things like newspapers,
which can be read in a fairly random fashion dictated by the reader.
Adding the word “electronic” to the definition helps to narrow our
focus. Hypertext is electronic text
that is non-linear in nature. While
this definition is more accurate, it does not begin to cover the many different
masks hypertext can wear. The term
hypertext describes an electronic text composed of what are sometimes called
nodes, or lexia (both terms referring to blocks of text) which may be linked
together non-sequentially. The
World Wide Web is an example of a single (albeit huge) hypertext.
Here, each web page is a node, and hyperlinks are made to other pages,
either within the same site or to other nodes outside of that website. When the
nodes contain elements of a literary work, hypertext can be a vehicle for the
creation of literary work.
It is important to define hypertext not strictly by its technological
attributes, but also by the interactive experiences of the author and reader. In her essay, “Hypertextual Thinking”, Catherine F. Smith
writes that, “From the viewpoint of classical rhetoric, hypertextual thinking
may be categorized as invention or exploration and discovery (278). Hypertext
provides for multiple authorship, a blurring of the author and reader functions,
multiple reading paths and extremely complex works with shifting, slippery
boundaries. With the inclusion of sound and graphics, hypertext and hypermedia
expands the set of tools available to a writer to use in the realization of
his/her vision.
Postmodernist thinker Geoffrey Bennington, who has written a biography of
his friend and mentor, Jacques Derrida, divides hypertext into two
classifications: interruptive and encyclopedic.
Alluding to the former, Bennington writes:
Indeed, hypertexts can just as well be presented as a
fulfillment of a metaphysical view of writing (remember Derrida's early comment
in 'Force and Signification' on the 'theological simultaneity of the Book', and
a quote from Leibniz describing what can only be a hypertext), driven by the
Idea of an absolutely accessible Encyclopedia of all knowledge. There's nothing
to be rude about in that: there's a perfectly respectable and welcome use of
hypertexts to make scholarship less like hard work, for example, and so to free
up time for thought
While this is an obviously appealing use of hypertext (in
fact, my proposed thesis attempts to accomplish exactly what Bennington
suggests), it is not what I am concerned with in this paper.
Instead, I would like to explore Bennington’s latter classification of
hypertext; what he calls the “interruptive”.
Bennington envisions “…the possibility of a sort of programmed
unpredictability”, and states that, “In principle, the network-structure of
hypertexts should make possible… a sort of dispersive reading.”
For the purpose of this paper, hypertext is not just text that utilizes
hyperlinks to shuttle the reader, but rather a philosophy; a way of
thinking that sees electronic text as non-linear and blurs the divisions between
author and reader that have existed since the inception of the written word.
This philosophy is evident in Mikhail Bakhtin’s Problems of
Dostoevsky's Poetics, when Bakhtin describes his vision of a dialogic novel
composed of multiple voices, which he claims would be "constructed not as
the whole of a single consciousness, absorbing other consciousnesses as objects
into itself, but as a whole formed by the interaction of several
consciousnesses, none of which entirely becomes an object for the other"
(18).
In his book S/Z, Roland Barthes uses the term
"lexia" to identify what he
if we want to remain attentive to the plural of a text . . .
we must renounce structuring this text in large masses, as was done by classical
rhetoric and by secondary-school explication: no construction of the
text: everything signifies ceaselessly and several times, but without being
delegated to a great final ensemble, to an ultimate structure" (p. 11-12).
Hypertext theorists take the term “lexia” and use it to
indicate a hypertextual piece of information, usually defined as the amount of
text and graphic content which fits on the screen of a computer monitor. It can
also be used to refer to each individual document within a hypertext that is
linked to others. In this paper I
will use the latter definition.
In Roland Barthe’s essay “The Death of the Author”, he writes that
a text "consists not of a line of words, releasing a single 'theological'
meaning (a communication from the Author/God), but of a multidimensional space
in which are married and contested several writings, none of which is original:
the text is a fabric of quotations, resulting from a thousand sources of
culture" (52-53). It’s easy
to see hypertext as the realization Barthe’s vision of a text that is not
‘owned’ solely by the Author/God (creator of the text). The ability of a
reader of hypertext to add to, alter, or edit a hypertext opens possibilities of
collective authorship that breaks down the idea of writing as originating from a
single fixed source. Similarly, the ability to plot out unique patterns of
reading, to move through a text in a non-linear fashion, serves to highlight the
importance of the reader in the "writing" of a text.
Each reading, even if it does not physically change the words of any
individual lexia, rewrites the text by re-arranging the structure of the text,
therefore privileging different pieces of the matrix.
When applied to the learning environment, the ability to move through an
already existing hypertext non-linearly can be a liberating experience, but it
pales in comparison to the impact that same non-linearity can have on the
student-writer. In The Sense of
Learning, Ann Berthoff writes that:
…proceeding
in a linear fashion is entirely appropriate when plowing a field or performing a
ceremony or doing the wash or carrying out any other task in which some things must
come before others, in which sequences are regulated or, as we say nowadays,
"rule-governed." But when we move from any such process to learning
something new, to any act of making meaning, to symbol making of any kind, these
linear models will not serve.
This idea
of using hypertext to more closely reproduce the “human” model of cognition
while at the same time connecting readers with writers is expressed by Linda
Flower as giving "a vivid image of how a cognitive network--the construct
of an individual mind--is at the same time an intensely social representation
and how the construction of meaning for a text can be an ongoing negotiation
with the 'presence' of other voices" (p. 98)
This hyper-technology can be applied to the teaching of freshman
composition in a relatively “trailing-edge”
environment. By this I mean
that the teacher of freshman composition who wishes to explore and apply the
principles of hypertextuality to his or her classroom need not apply for a grant
for new computers. The
implementation of hypertextual elements to one’s syllabus does not require
leading-edge technology. In fact,
it doesn’t require a network, or even access to the Internet.
To paraphrase Cynthia Selfe, it is no longer a valid excuse to point at
this technology as a deus ex machina.
At the University of Texas, Professor Daniel Anderson (available for your
perusal at http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~daniel/hyperwriting/
has his students use hypertext to create works of fiction by multiple authors,
non-linear persuasion papers (Is “papers” an obsolete term in the realm of
electronic text? Probably not…
many people still call the refrigerator an “icebox”, and the new Ice Cube CD
is often still referred to as an “album”), and informative writing that is
both multi-nodal and written by multiple contributors. One of the longest practicing pro-hypertext English
departments is at Brown University, where Ted Nelson actually implemented some
of his ideas. George P. Landow, a
Professor of English and Art History at Brown, has written extensively on the
subject of hypertex, and has implanted his ideas in the classroom for years.
In 1992, writing on the subject of one way a multiple-author hypertext
can be produced, he writes:
A full hypertext system, unlike a book and unlike some of the
first approximations of hypertext currently available (Hypercard, Guide), offers
the reader and writer the same environment. Therefore, by opening the
text-processing program or editor, as it is known, you can take notes, or you
can write against my interpretations, against my text. Although you cannot
change my text, you can write a response and then link it to my document. You
thus have read the readerly text in several ways not possible with a book: you
have chosen your reading path, and since you, like all readers, will choose
individualized paths, the hypertext version of this book would probably take a
very different form…
Today, 8 years later, the “full hypertext system” has become a
reality. Students in even the most
rudimentary of university writing labs can gain access to Microsoft’s Front
Page or Adobe’s Page Mill, web-authoring program that uses a GUI (graphical
user interface) to make writing hypertext easy.
Using specialized software like Eastgate’s “Storyspace”, however,
is a more faithful representation of the truly non-linear, multi-nodal
philosophy that is Hypertext. Rather
than attempt to describe a hypothetical classroom application, I have chosen to
cite Professor Jeanie C. Crain of Missouri Western State College describing her
experience using Storyspace:
Using a writing process text, I adapted prewriting strategies
into six essay assignments, using the chart as a primary tool. The chart view
shows the structure of nested writing spaces in a familiar tree diagram. Using
the immediate trunk for instructions, I created writing spaces branching from
these. Students were thus necessarily led through a complex generative process
into drafting, revision, and final products. Structure and detail were
remarkable in final versions. Just as important, the same strategy could be used
in any instructional setting where individuals are being asked to carry out
steps leading to complex documents. Storyspace
is by far the best software I have seen for teaching writing as a process.
Quickly, the teacher--having worked hard at the front end in creating a
well designed procedure--moves into the role of consultant, responding to real
writing problems as they emerge in the assignment. Storyspace could be just as
easily adapted to written materials requiring reflection, note-taking, and
feedback. (137-141)
Professor Crain illustrates the use of hypertext to teach
writing as process. She does not
address many of the specific advantages of such a lesson.
A recursive method of writing, re-writing and brainstorming is easily
achieved using a program like Storyspace. The
pre-writing process is one area that is often difficult for members of a
freshman composition class. Being
able to add, delete and modify thoughts in a non-linear, multi-nodal fashion can
be both liberating and stimulating for students who struggle in a more
constrictive atmosphere. Professor
Crain also mentions that Storyspace could be used in the development of
“reflection”, a post-process activity that Kathleen Blake Yancey defines as
“the processes by which we know what we have accomplished and by which we
articulate accomplishment and… the products of those processes.” (6)
A process like reflection lends itself to hypertext by its very lack of
specificity. Students faced with a
need to “reflect” on what they have done can refer to their lexia and
compile a reflective text in a non-linear fashion that is able to mimic the way
the human mind works more closely than the more restrictive, traditionally
linear methods.
The other application of hypertext as a tool for teaching writing process
is that of more collaborative efforts like multiple-authoring.
Because hypertext does not privilege Barthe’s “Author/God” (the
individual creator of a text), it would seem that developing an accurate
assessment of a collaboratively created hypertext assignment might be difficult.
The converse is closer to the truth. Because hypertext is constructed of lexia
which is written by individual students, teachers don’t have to spend time
trying to decipher which student contributed what to the final product, as is
often the case in more traditional collaborative exercises. Each individual
lexia comprising the final work is “signed” by its author, and thus easily
identified. The instructor can analyze and assess the collaborative work as
well.
Multiple-authoring projects can take many forms.
In one scenario, the instructor supplies students with a subject, like
“Madness in Hamlet”, or “Maryland’s Natural Beauty”.
In stage one of this process, the students work through a recursive
generative process to produce individual texts, which, in stage two become their
own lexia, which they in turn contribute to the collaborative work.
Stage three might have students respond to each others lexia, creating
links that tie them together on points of agreement and contention.
Another use of multi-authoring is in the creation of fiction.
In this scenario, students are supplied with a setting, and perhaps some
characters. An example might be
something like: “Headstone is a town in Arizona. The year is 1850.” followed
by thumbnail descriptions of several key characters… the mayor, the sheriff,
the local saloon owner. Students
might individually create short stories that take place in this setting in stage
one. Stage two could have them
create another set of stories that ties the first set together.
Alternately, a detailed description of a protagonist (the sheriff, for
example) can be provided and all of the students’ individual texts can use
this one character as their protagonist, eventually compling a collaborative
work entitled, “The Adventures of
Sheriff Dawgley P. Dawgenstein, The Fastest Gun in Arizona.”
The concepts and philosophy of hypertext could easily be put to practical
use here at Bowie State University in the freshman composition program by simply
installing a program like Storyspace in the Sizemore Writing Center.
The cost would be minimal (under a thousand dollars) and the benefits
could be great. The learning curve
for instructors is not very steep – programs like this one rely on a fairly
intuitive graphical interface that makes understanding the program simple for
any instructor already familiar with either the Microsoft Windows operating
system or Macintosh. The philosophy
of thinking hypertextually may be a more difficult task than the actual use of
the technology, but it would be a mistake to think of hypertext technology as
daunting. It is not Baudrillard’s
virtual reality of non-existence that we discuss here, but rather Barthe’s
ultimate structure. If freshman
composition students are more engaged by the use of this technology, and if it
is (as it seems to be) a way to provide those students with a set of non-linear
writing processes that are more accessible than the traditional alternatives,
how can we justify not implementing it?
Works Cited
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics.
Edited and Translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1984.
Barthes, R. “The
Death of the Author.” The Rustle of Language. (R.
Howard, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. 1986.
Barthes, R. S/Z.
(R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. 1970.
Berthoff, A. E. The
Sense of Learning. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook 1990.
Crain, Jeanie C. “Computers
and the Humanities”. Volume 27, Number 2, 1993.
Flower, L. The construction of negotiated
meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press. 1994.
Landow, George. “Reading
and Writing in a Hypertext Environment”.
Brown University. http://muse.jhu.edu/press/books/landow/htreading.html
Accessed 5/18/00. Pages 6-7 in
print version. © the Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Smith, Catherine. “Hypertextual Thinking” in Literacy
and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology.
Ed.Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligloss.
New York. 1994.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake.
Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan, Utah. Utah State University Press. 1998.