Humanising Language Teaching
Year 5; Issue 3; May 03

Hyper-reading, Hyperwriting: explorations in non-linear literacy

Claudia Ferradas Moi, Argentina

We simply cannot continue with our jobs largely as we always have as if very little is really changing… the electronic revolution has begun to extend its reach into classrooms across the curriculum, at all levels of education… we must incorporate the technologies into our teaching if for no other reason than our students will force us to change… A more pressing and perhaps even more persuasive reason relates to issues of power and how we and our students gain access to it.
Ilana Snyder, 1998

In the 1960's, Ted Nelson conceived of a huge electronic network to connect all the information in the world by means of cross-referenced documents. He called this a “docuverse” and coined the word “hypertext” to name a tool which would create a nonsequential linking of texts. In the same decade, both literary theory and computer science were taking steps towards the systematisation of textual forms that cited other texts -what Gérard Genette (1962) referred to as “palimpsests”. For Genette, hypertextuality is the relationship that links text B (the hypertext) to a previous text A (the hypotext) in a way which is not a mere commentary. In this sense, all texts can be said to be potentially hypertextual.

The increasing access to personal computers, the development of interactive technology and the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web have given Nelson's docuverse and his notion of hypertext concrete shape. In Literary Machines (1981), Nelson was then able to write: “By hypertext I mean non-sequential writing -text that branches and allows choices to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived, this is a series of text chunks connected by links which offer the reader different pathways”.

In 1992, George P. Landow, a pioneer in the use of hypertext in higher education, wrote a book whose title reveals the impact of hypertext within a cultural context informed by new technologies: Hypertext: the Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. In this book, computer hypertext is defined as “text composed of blocks of words (or images) linked electronically by multiple paths, chains or trails in an open-ended, perpetually unfinished textuality described by the terms link, node, network, web and path” (Landow, 1992, p.3).

Attracted by the challenge offered by electronic links, the American writer Michael Joyce experimented with hypertext to write original fiction. He then conceived of a virtual story that would never be read the same way twice: the result was afternoon, a story. Hypertext fiction (or hyperfiction) had been born.

As George Melrod (1994, p.162) defines it, hyperfiction is “non-linear interactive electronic literature. Potentially, the next stage of evolution for storytelling, where text is made of light instead of ink, where you help the author shape the story, and where you never read he same novel the same way twice”. Hyperfiction can only be read on a computer screen. Readers decide where to go next by consulting the titles of linked passages or let the links between windows (which may be called “lexias” using Roland Barthes' (1970) terminology) take them to an unknown place in the textual geography. They can choose whether to click on a word, on an arrow that takes them backwards or forwards, on YES and NO buttons… or simply press “ENTER”, which is just like “turning the page”. “The result is a kind of narrative collage, a textual kaleidoscope in which the story is cut into fragments and is constantly changing. If it's a bit disorienting, that's part of the idea. Instead of laying out a straight path, hyperfictions set you down in a maze, give you a compass, then let you decide where to go next”. (Melrod, 1994, p. 163).

By definition, hyperfiction is strikingly open-ended. This empowers the reader, who is not only able to make decisions such as where to go next or when to “put an end to the story” but is in control of the process of appropriation (the interaction with the text that leads the reader to “own” a certain reading of the text) in ways which are hard to achieve within print technology. Michael Joyce reflects on this in an introductory lexia in his afternoon, a story:

WORK IN PROGRESS

Closure is, as in any fiction, a suspect quality, although here it is made manifest. When a story no longer progresses, or when it cycles, or when you tire of the paths, the experience of reading it ends. Even so, there are likely to be more opportunities than you think there are at first. A word which doesn't yield the first time you read a section may take you elsewhere if you choose it when you encounter the section again; and sometimes what seems a loop, like memory, heads off again in another direction. There is no simple way to say this.

Where and how to put an end to a story must always have been one of the main preoccupations of a writer, and it is certainly the focus of the metaliterary concern which pervades the self-referential novel of the last few decades. Hypertext unveils the artificiality of closure, revealing not only the writer's but the reader's role in the creation of that artifice, as well as the arbitrary nature of the paths that may lead to it.

Hyperfiction is a question of texture, or, as Mary-Kim Arnold (1993) has expressed it, “Words that yield to the touch”. But what words will “yield” if the reader clicks on them? Joyce's explanation in afternoon, a story seems to have established the metaphor:

READ AT DEPTH

I haven't indicated what words yield, but they are usually ones which have texture...

Once again, it is the reader who decides which words “have texture”, which bear a tempting quality... and wherever s/he decides to click, s/he is unlikely to be disappointed.

Reconfiguring reading

The reader advances, down the labyrinth of forking paths that Borges (1941) once imagined, sometimes at a loss, sometimes helped by the map, chart, treemap or outline of links between lexias which the author may have provided. But no matter how s/he chooses to do it, the reading experience is a challenge to the stability of the traditional concepts of text, author and reader.

Delany and Landow (1991, p.3) point out that “so long as text was married to a physical media (SIC), readers and writers took for granted three crucial attributes: that the text was linear, bounded and fixed. Generations of scholars and authors internalized these qualities as the rules of thought, and they had pervasive social consequences. We can define Hypertext as the use of the computer to transcend the linear, bounded and fixed qualities of the traditional written text.” Devoid of paper, tablet, scroll, book... the text becomes virtual, transient. There is no stable object holding the entire text: all the reader can see is one block of text at a time and explore the electronic links that connect that lexia to others: a variable textual structure that lies behind the blocks and can be represented on screen as a tree diagram, a web, a network. There is no fixed way out of the labyrinth: you build it as you choose your way down the forking paths.

If hypertext has changed the nature of text, it has also disclosed the nature of underlying reading operations. True, the reader may apply perfectly conventional reading habits in each lexia, but, as Delany and Landow (1991, p.4) believe, “[hypertext] can also provide a revelation, by making visible and explicit mental processes that have always been part of the total experience of reading. For the text as the reader imagined it -as opposed to the physical text objectified in the book- never had to be linear, bounded or fixed. A reader could jump to the last page to see how a story ended; could think of relevant passages in other works; could re-order texts by cutting and pasting. Still, the stubborn materiality of the text constrained such operations.”

Hypertext, then, is the virtual space where modern literary criticism and pedagogy meet, as the active reader in the learner-centred classroom becomes a reality rather than a desideratum, for “hypertext does not permit a tyrannical, univocal voice. Rather, the voice is always that distilled from the combined experience of the momentary focus, the lexia one presently reads, and the continually forming narrative of one's reading path” (Landow,1992, p.11).

Reconfiguring education

All this has far-reaching implications for education in general and for literary education in particular. The dialogical interaction between reader and text which allows each reader to construct “the meaning of the text afresh” (Pulverness, 1996) has been (and many times still is) veiled by layers of respect for the mythical authority of writers, critics and literature teachers. Even in classrooms where the existence of multiple readings is acknowledged, there is often an underlying belief in the superiority of the teacher's learned reading. Hyperfiction removes the veil: not only does it offer multiple readings, but multiple texts (or architectural realizations of text). This simply means that no reading (not even the teacher's!) can be considered the “correct” one, as the text itself is not fixed and it literally grows with every reading. There is no stable entity to be analysed in search of the “correct” interpretation. Hyperfiction readers are aware of the fact that they are opening the textual track as they advance, putting together textual chunks whose combination is virtual rather than actual. As they sit in front of the computer, readers are encouraged to fill in “indeterminacy gaps” (Iser,1971) in the information as they read (or rather, navigate) the text. Though they cannot change the author's work, they can discover multiple combinations and can actually type notes on a “notepad” as they read, responding to the information gaps in the text. The boundaries between reader and writer are then blurred and the authority of the authorial voice is partially transferred to the reader. The reader activates procedural skills to make sense not only of discourse but of the constructive web behind it .

Hyperfiction in the EFL class

What contributions can this kind of literature make to a learner-centred classroom where literature is integrated with the teaching of English as a foreign language? How can the reading experience lead to meaningful writing and speaking activities? What materials can teachers and students develop using hypertext writing programs and applications? Teachers and students can visit the British Council's LearnEnglish website at http://www.learnenglish.org.uk and find Crazy World, the web-serial Tim Rhys has created, under “poems and stories”. This is perhaps the only example of “graded” hyperfiction produced so far for upper intermediate students of English. It offers creative interactive opportunities for students, who are not only invited to vote on different alternatives but to write to an “agony aunt”. Navigating such texts is a new and exciting literary experience in itself and it can also help us plan classes where printed science fiction stories can be related intertextually with the hypertext, thus contributing to the dialogue between page and screen. As for the use of non-graded hyperfiction with advanced EFL students, a pilot experience with a group of Argentine students (Ferradas Moi, 1998) suggests a few preliminary conclusions:

• carefully planned pre-computer activity is needed to acquaint the reader with the necessary information and skills required to approach the new textual form (especially with groups who are not yet comfortable with the use of computers)
• the computer-based activity can be frustrating: this is perhaps unavoidable when a new format is encountered, but it also means the teacher may want to select a hypertext which resembles traditional stories to some extent rather than a more radically “avant-garde” one
• the post-computer activity can become a true negotiation between different readers as to what “the text” means: the teacher or workshop coordinator can count on information and opinion gaps that will encourage involvement and give rise to a number of meaningful language activities
• this also encourages learner autonomy: hyperfiction reading involves commitment on the part of the students. They are responsible for their own reading, as they will have to retell their version and support their views with constant references to the reading they have “saved”
• the lack of a “correct” version can be particularly encouraging for the more insecure students, who may feel free to express their views
• above all, reading hyperfiction and writing comments as the reader advances contributes to the development of metacognitive strategies: the learner is encouraged to think about the way in which the textual resources contribute to the building of hypotheses as s/he moves down the textual links; thus, s/he reflects upon his/her own interpretive procedures, and the process raises awareness of the reader's expectations, reading style, the affective factors at play in the building of the textual web and the way this compares to the procedures used by others
• the participants insisted that, as they read hyperfiction at home, the experience became even more exciting as they thought of the next meeting with the other members of the group: it seems that coming to terms with the text involved discussing it with other readers (which ensures motivation and encourages collaborative learning)

Apart from its value concerning awareness-raising, hyperfiction can lead to meaningful role-play activities (dialogues between characters in the different “versions”), to the meaningful retelling of a student's reading -asking the others to provide “closure” and then comparing their suggestions to the ending s/he “reached”- as well as to highly motivating written tasks, such as descriptions of one character as seen by different readers, or a series of letters (or e-mails) from one character to another, where a number of misunderstandings will be produced by the fact that characters have different information in each case... and many other creative activities for language practice. However, further research needs to be done to corroborate the preliminary conclusions listed above and explore their implications. In particular, it is necessary to investigate whether these statements apply to the needs of EFL students at lower levels of proficiency. To experience this yourselves, you may want to order afternoon, a story or many other hyperfiction pieces from www.eastgate.com. Or you can explore Geoff Ryman's 253 at http://www.ryman-novel.com/.

As teachers and materials designers, we should bear in mind that even though we may hail the advent of forms of technology that contribute to the achievement of a more democratic, learner-centred classroom, we must be aware of the implications this may have in the particular context in which we teach and learn, so I expect further studies to consider some of the questions hyperfiction raises:

• How satisfying is the reading of a permanently inconclusive work? Can the frustration of finding oneself in the same lexia again and again be overcome with considerations on how the lexia can be interpreted in its new occurrence?
• Up to what extent is the reader free to choose where s/he is going? How much manipulation on the part of the author is there when s/he determines where links lead? Can this help us become aware of the manipulative potential of hypermedia products on the Internet?
• Does hyperfiction really challenge our concept of narrative? Can we do away with the narrative line, or do we put the chunks together, jigsaw puzzle style, only to reconstruct some form of narrative sequence?
• What possibilities does hypertext offer for the development of new pedagogical practices and the design of innovative materials?
• Can hypertext help us throw light on the metacognitive processes involved in reading?
• Will screens ever replace books? How will a “reading artifact” look, feel, smell... in years to come? And how is that likely to change our perception of the world in general?
• How will hypertext negotiate its relationship with images and audience in attractive multimedia environments such as the Internet?

Finally, how democratic is a form that depends not only on the access to computer hardware and software but on the necessary “know-how”, especially in countries where access and “know-how” are still the privilege of a few? Does this contribute to McLuhan's global village or to a world whose distribution of power (and empowering knowledge) is becoming more and more unfair?

In educational contexts where access to resources such as chalk and a blackboard can be a luxury, the issues discussed in this article may sound unrealistic, perhaps even offensive, in their high-tech sophistication. However, it is this kind of literacy that is contributing to widening the gap between those with access to education and jobs and the victims of social inequality. As educators, we must be aware, ready and critical, so that the elusive attraction of the virtual does not veil the dangers and the challenges it involves.

N.B. Sections of this article were published in:
- Hyperfiction: Explorations in Textual Texture. In IATEFL Literature and Cultural Studies SIG Newsletter, spring / summer 2002
- Hyper-reading: facing the challenge of electronic literature. In Folio 7.1 / 7.2, MATSDA, U.K., January 2003
Further considerations on hypertext and materials design, with details on the experiences described in the paper, can be found in: Hyperfiction: Explorations in Textual Texture. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.) Issues in Materials Development for Language Teaching, Continuum, UK (2002)

References

Arnold, M. (1993) 'Lust'. Computer disc. The Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertext, Vol. I, No.2, Winter 1994.
Barthes, R. (1970) S / Z. Paris: Editions du Seuil. S / Z. (1976). Translated by Richard Miller. N.Y.: Hill and Wang.
Beavis C. (1998) 'Computer games, culture and curriculum' in Snyder, I. (ed.) (1998). Page to Screen - Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. London and New York: Routledge, pp.234 – 255.
Borges, J.L. (1941) 'The Garden of Forking Paths' (trans. Donald A. Yates) in Labyrinths. New Directions, USA, 1964; Penguin, UK, 1970.
Culler, J. (1983) On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. London: Routledge.
Delany and Landow (1991) 'Hypertext, Hypermedia and Literary Studies: The State of the Art' in Delany P. and Landow, G. (eds.) (1991). Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Cambridge (Mass.): the MIT Press.
Ferradas Moi, C. (1998) 'Hypertext: Explorations in Textual Texture in the Learner-Centred EFL Classroom'. "The Inner Eye ", Buenos Aires
Genette, G. (1962) Palimpsestos: la literatura en segundo grado. Madrid: Taurus (1989).
Iser, W. (1971), 'Indeterminacy and the Reader's Response', quoted in K.M.Newton (ed.) (1988) Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader. London: Macmillan Education.
Joyce, M. (1990) afternoon, a story. Computer disc. Cambridge, Mass.: Eastgate Press.
Joyce, M.(1995) Of Two Minds: Hypertext Pedagogy and Poetics. Ann Arbor / University of Michigan Press
Landow, G. (1992) Hypertext: the Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.
Melrod, G. (1994) 'Digital Unbound'. Details, October, pp.162 - 165 & 199
Nelson, T.H. (1981) Literary Machines. Swarthmore, Pa.: Self-published.
Pulverness, A. (1996) 'Outside Looking In: Teaching Literature as Dialogue'. The Hermetic Garage, last number but three, pp. 69 – 85
Snyder I. (ed.) (1998) Page to Screen - Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. London and New York: Routledge
Yellowlees Douglas, J. (1993) 'I Have Said Nothing'. Computer disc. The Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertext, Vol. I, No.2, Winter 1994.
Yellowlees Douglas, J. (1994). 'The Quick and the Dirty - Reading “I Have Said Nothing”. The Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertext, Vol. I, No.2, Winter 1994.