Hypertext.
As I sit and type, I am thinking about how this very action can (if it does) differ from constructing prose, pen and paper in hand, in the 'traditional' manner of writing. Do we see the same cross over from Hyper-writing, if you will, impacting traditional writing skills? Is this a natural correlation to make if reading skills are in a (supposed, according to Hayles) decline due to Hypertext/reading?
Sosnoski talks about computer-assisted reading, and renders it somehow different from reading that same text in a printed version. Putting his essay in conversation with Hayles, we begin to understand why these two mediums differ. Hayles claims that Hyperreading actually require changes in brain architecture (67), in addition to adaptation to new reading strategies that Sosnoski points out; filtering, skimming, pecking, imposing, filming, trespassing, de-authorizing, and fragmenting (163).
It is arguable whether or not these new skills required for Hyperreading are in direct opposition to close reading. I find myself often in the position in a college semester, where I simply do not have to time allotment for the reading I need to do. In these instances, perhaps due to my experience with Hypertexts, I can use my adapted reading abilities to skim and peck the texts and still come away with a general understand of a text- still able to put it in conversation and learn or benefit from the discussion. I think the contingent issue at hand is not the use of these new skills, but the perpetual use of them.
Students in generation X are resourceful, as well as lazy. I have friends who 'hate to read books'- perhaps because they struggle with the restricted and academic format, and perhaps they take more easily to the flexibility that can be found in Hyperreading. But take caution, the internet has opened up a world of quick-fixes and easy solutions, like websites that will actually write your essay for you (http://www.essaywritingsoft.com/essay-generator.html ) or translators that make it possible to read a novel in Spanish while not comprehending the language. In our world today, there is no offline. We are constantly connected, perpetually plugged-in, and watching our trends of modernization, we won't be slowing down anytime soon. Not all hope is lost, though. The Atlantic found an interesting trend between number of books read and level of education, showing that on average, Americans in college read 9 books per year. What their study fails to differentiate is if these books were read with the aid of a Nook or Kindle (Hyperreading?) or were traditional novels in print. Check it out, and think about what Sosnoski or Hayles would have to say-- Jakobs would probably spiel about the webpage's setup.
So as Hayles proposed, we need to stop haranguing Hypertext and asserting that deep reading Joyce's 'Portrait' is the only way to identify well constructed prose, and begin to look for ways to combine and better navigate a combination of Hypertext and close-reading, so future generations can remain balanced and evenly skilled. Hayles surmises: "The larger point is that close, hyper and machine reading each have distinctive advantages and limitations; nevertheless, they also overlap and can be made to interact synergistically with one another" ( 75).
I'd like to state that I found Jakobs essay dry and virtually useless, focusing too much on teched-out language and forms that are not easily relatable or even understandable to the average reader.
Not a fan- I'd argue we could drop this from the readings the next go around and be no worse off, though I'd like to see how others react to this work, since we all have our preferences...
I felt very similar towards Jakob's text. I was so bored with it that I chose to not even mention it or retain anything. With regards to the other areas, I for one, feel that that "hypertext" has many good uses—there may be many bad uses, but if done right there could be many positive uses, too. Because of handheld devices, I'm able to read wherever I am. I feel that the majority of "reading" I do is done in hypertext form. I'm not as efficient with it (retention, speed reading, etc) but it enables to read much more often.
ReplyDeleteThis topic was summed up in your phrase ‘balanced and even skilled’. I agree, but what we are looking for in all the current ways of reading and writing is basically everything: comprehension, understanding, entertainment and trivia and on and on. Clearly not much has changed from years ago where printed books, graphic novels and magazines delivered on those results. With the statement “it is arguable whether or not these new skills required for hyperreading are in direct opposition to close reading” is where the past and the future diverge. Examining the benefits of two (or more) systems it appears that this is a case where we would and should use multiple methods of intake. You go on though, and this is the area where we need to be careful, hunting and pecking your way through hypertext to gain enough knowledge to benefit. Hypertext rewards (perpetuating) those students seeking just enough to appear educated, while close reading promotes a deeper understanding. How can we chose between the two then, or more importantly who should chose for us? As Hayles pointed out the difference between attaining knowledge or degrading comprehension can be just that choice. In the past the equivalent of hyperreading was a People magazine, we didn’t turn to it when we wanted to read Ulysses, but now hyperreading allows all topics. There was a hierarchy of materials that has gone the way of the floppy disk. As Baron points out, it really doesn’t matter though, the future is here, it’s just another tool but how we use it will make all the difference.
ReplyDelete