|
A CULTURAL CHANGE OF FOCUS?By Heide Brown |
A cultural change of focus? Yes, definitely, if the political and social
climate is ready for the new technology of internet and hypertext.
Today, in the areas of reading and writing, we are in the midst of changes
of focus on many different levels. Theorists were discussing aspects of
these changes years before the technology caught up. Now the technology has
not only caught up and is actualising the changes of focus, but is also
accelerating them. As Barthes (1970) said in describing some future ideal
text, long before the development of the internet and hypertext, "In this
ideal text the networks are many and interact, without any one of them
being able to surpass the rest; this text is a galaxy of signifiers, not a
structure of signifieds; it has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain
access to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively
declared to be the main one; the codes it mobilises extend as far as the
eye can reach, they are indeterminable....," (1).
In discussing the writings of Derrida, Nelson, Barthes and van Dam, Landow
(1992) states: "All four, like many others who write on hypertext and
literary theory, argue that we must abandon conceptual systems founded upon
ideas of centre, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them by ones
of multi linearity, nodes, and networks." (2).
The development of the internet and hypertext/hypermedia, and their rapid
spread throughout the world, has caused this to happen. Literary focus,
with hypertext, has shifted from linear, hierarchical "classic texts" (3) to
non-linear, democratic networks of text.
Landow (1992), taking into account the new technology, suggests that
"Barthes's distinction between readerly and writerly texts appears to be
essentially a distinction between text based on print technology and
electronic hypertext." (4).
The old readerly classic text's focus is writer-controlled, centered. The
interactive writerly text's focus is de-centered and reader controlled --
has no controlling context. To quote again from Landow (1992):
"Hypertext....provides an infinitely re-centerable system whose focus
depends upon the reader.... One of the fundamental characteristics of
hypertext is that it is composed of bodies of linked texts that have no
primary axis of organisation."(5).
Derrida's (1972) statement: "I believe that the center is a function, not a
being...." predicts the electronic book shifting the focus from product to
process. (6) The
electronic book becomes a path rather than a destination, changing rather
than static. The text is different for each individual who interacts with
it, and even different each time that individual goes back to interact
again with the text.
I agree with Landow (1992) when he says that "Changing the ease with which
one can .... pursue individual references radically changes both the
experience of reading and ultimately the nature of that which is read." (7).
New technology, particularly the internet and hypertext, has changed the
focus from indirect, distant and difficult accessibility to direct, simple
and immediate accessibility. The reader with this technology can check out
references and sources frequently and easily through links. This means that
the reader is actually reading different material than s/he would be were
s/he reading the same book as a classic text.
The change in focus in both theoretical and technological fields has implications for
reading and writing on-line. With hypertext the focus of the reader is shifted from
passive recipient to active participant. The reader can choose whether or not to follow
links to references, which side-tracks to browse, and therefore, ultimately, the book s/he
reads. S/he can also choose, as technology changes, what form of link to follow. Already
there are some audio and video links available. The focus of the writer is shifted from
building up to a point or climax, to getting the point across in the first paragraph
because that is all the reader may read. If the writer doesn't make her/his point and catch
the reader's attention immediately, the reader may cruise on somewhere else. Jakob Nielsen
(1996), in "Inverted Pyramids in Cyberspace" compares writing for the web to
writing for newspapers. 
"Journalists....start the article by telling the reader the conclusion...., followed by the most important supporting information, and end by giving the background. .... Inverted pyramid writing is useful for newspapers because readers can stop at any time and will still get the most important parts of the article.
"On the Web, the inverted pyramid becomes even more important since we know from several user studies that users don't scroll, so they will very frequently be left to read only the top part of an article. Very interested readers will scroll, and these few motivated souls will reach the foundation of the pyramid and get the full story in all its gory detail." (8).
All this is changing how writers construct their text, and it's already visible on the internet. Each section, block, page, should be able to stand on its own. It should be an entity in its own right that doesn't need lead-ins or references from the previous section. These sections are much like separate little essays or stories in a series; continuing but without needing any other part of the series to make sense; connected yet totally capable of standing on their own.
The numerous shifts in focus which revolve around the changes from classic text to electronic text could be called a paradigm shift, the ultimate effects of which cannot be predicted. Certainly we can expect shifts of focus within our culture. However, these shifts will depend upon the interaction between the culture and the technology. For example, the printed word has been given a high value in our society. The old saying "It's written in....so it must be true" is a reminder of the considerable weight the printed word still carries today, but that is the result of both the technology - the printing press - and the culture within which it was used. Kernan (1987) points out that "The idealisation of the literary text and the attribution to it of a stylistic essence are both developments of latent print possibilities, but there was, I believe, no precise necessity beforehand that letters would be valorized in these particular ways." (9).
Landow (1992) suggests that a technology has different effects depending on where and when it is developed, with different logical possibilities "....each of which comes into play, or becomes dominant, only under certain economic, political, and technological conditions." (10). Our shifts in focus are accentuated and accelerated by the changes in technology, but are not necessarily because of the technology itself so much as because of the political and social climate. Landow (1992) reminds us, and I agree, that "Considerations of hypertext, critical theory, and literature have to take into account what Jameson calls the basic `recognition that there is nothing that is not social and historical -- indeed, that everything is `in the last analysis' political'" (11).
1.Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970. S/Z. Translated by
Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang, 1974. In George P. Landow's "The
Definition of Hypertext and Its History as a Concept." from chapter one
on-line, Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of
Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
2.George P. Landow. "Hypertextual Derrida, Postructuralist Nelson?" from
chapter one on-line, Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The
Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
3.Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970. S/Z. Translated by
Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang, 1974. In George P. Landow's
"Roland Barthes and the Writerly Text." from Chapter one on-line, Hypertext
and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary
Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
4.George P. Landow. "Roland Barthes and the Writerly Text." from Chapter
one on-line, Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence
of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
5.George P. Landow. "Hypertext and De-Centering." from Chapter one on-line,
Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of
Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
6.Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the
Human Sciences." In The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of
Criticism and the Sciences of Man, edited by Richard A. Macksey and Eugenio
Donato (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972). In George P.
Landow's "Hypertext and De-Centering." from Chapter one on-line, Hypertext
and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary
Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
7.George P. Landow. "Annotation in a Print Text." from Chapter one on-line,
Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of
Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
8.Jakob Nielsen. "Inverted Pyramids in Cyberspace." Alertbox .
June 1996.
9.Kernan, Alvin. Printing Technology,Letters & Samuel Johnson. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1987. In George P. Landow's "Analogues to the
Gutenberg Revolution." from Chapter one on-line, Hypertext and Critical
Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and
Technology. 1992.
10.George P. Landow. "Analogues to the Gutenberg Revolution." from Chapter
one on-line, Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence
of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
11.George P. Landow. "Analogues to the Gutenberg Revolution." from Chapter
one on-line, Hypertext and Critical Theory. Hypertext: The Convergence
of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. 1992.
Click the Print to send to writer