301

Chapter-VII

Conclusion

Technology has made inroads into the field of literature that primarily deals

with human experience. Numerous innovations have enriched it but none has

significantly affected the structure of text. It was only with the advent of computers

that man felt the need for devising new ways of writing text and experimenting with

its structure. In fact this new technology has provided us the tools for manipulating

text. This led to the discovery of a novel way to organize text and the concept of

hypertext came into being.

In this work the development of computer mediated technology has been

traced right from its beginning. Presently a number of technocritics assert that

hypertext has great potential as a literary medium and avant-garde artists can tap this

potential to create literary works that will undermine the concepts of origin,

originality, hierarchy, linearity and center. But when Vannevar Bush sketched out

plans for an associative information retrieval programme called the memex which

ultimately culminated into hypertext, he didn‟t have literature in his mind. He was the

presidential science advisor to President Roosevelt during Second World War and

head of atomic bomb project (USA). He had proposed this new technology keeping in

view the military needs. Hence it was the war and not literature that led to the

emergence of computers and computer mediated technology in the first place. This

fact is significant in itself as many critics are sceptical of hypertext‟s literary potential

on the ground that it emerged in response to the needs of armed forces rather than to

serve any literary purpose.

Hypertext has been variously defined by technocritics according to their own

understanding of it. Its oft-quoted definition is the variety of text that is not
 302

constrained to be linear. It can be concluded from various definitions of hypertext that

it is an umbrella term that encompasses concepts like multilinearity, deconstruction,

heteroglossia and polyphony. Technocritics consider hypertext to be in accord with

the postulates laid down by the poststructuralists and deconstructionists. In their

opinion it is a novel way of reading and writing. It is a medium that offers readers a

variety of choices to follow and have a variety of experiences depending upon the

choices made. They argue that each encounter with hypertext is a fresh experience for

the readers.

Some technocritics claim that it is possible for the readers to interpret

hypertext in their own ways and they argue that each interpretation has equal validity.

Thus in their opinion hyperfictions have given a deathblow to the monopoly of a

chosen few to interpret literary texts. They point out that hypertext thrives on

marginality and exists in fragments or parts because it is devoid of any well-defined

center. In their opinion it is a dynamic text open to mutations and additions and hence

it can be changed in response to user input, is open-ended and ever-developing. The

fluidity of hypertext, according to them, is its most important characteristic.

But Espen J. Aarseth and many other technocritics do not seem to agree.

Aarseth first of all contends that hypertext is simply a variety of cybertext and

according to him it has not substantially changed the way we read texts. He argues

that hypertext certainly is a new of way writing rather than reading with active links

and the user‟s ability to reach different places or altogether new documents by simply

clicking on linked or highlighted words. More over when Michael Joyce differentiates

between constructive and exploratory hypertexts one can easily deduce from his

discussion that reader‟s freedom from linear sequence which is often held up as
 303

hypertext‟s cognitive and political strength, is a promise easily retracted and wholly

dependent on the hypertext system in question.

Time and again many technocritics have questioned the dichotomy between

codex and hypertext. They argue that this dichotomy has created a new pair of binary

opposites and it is in a way perpetuating what it otherwise claims to subvert. Some

technocritics like Paul Hackman also argue that rather than considering hypertext as

an alternative to print technology, one must consider it as a continuation or

remediation of print. Rather than celebrating one media at the expense of the other it

is more appropriate to concentrate on interaction between the two. This will not only

serve to undo the opposition that has been created between them by some

technocritics but will also significantly assert the crucial role played by print tradition

for making sense of hypertext as anything but a series of fragments. If new media is

described as radically different from the old with attributes solely determined by the

material technology of the medium and projected as a means of social of improvement

and political and intellectual liberation then it will only give rise to technological

determinism. This kind of technological determinism has been refuted by many

technocritics.

Aarseth is quite right in pointing out the need for a new set of terminology for

discussing hypertext. It is quite inappropriate to discuss the new technology by

borrowing terms from the field of literary criticism. The application of theories of

literary criticism to this new emerging empirical field of study without reassessment

of the terms and concepts involved is equally wrong. This practice will turn the

vocabulary of literary studies into a set of unfocussed metaphors rendered useless by a

translation that is not perceived as such by its very translators. This is so because

hypertext like other varieties of cybertext like adventures games, is not a text the way
 304

the average literary text is a text. They produce verbal structures for aesthetic effect

but in addition to that they have an added paraverbal dimension also. While reading a

hyperdocument one is always reminded of the voices not heard, the inaccessible

strategies and paths not taken. The ambiguities of hyperdocuments are always

different from the ambiguities of a linear text. Hence it is necessary to evolve a new

set of vocabulary that is unique to the realm of cybertextuality and deals with the

critique of hyperdocuments.

In this regard one can cite the example of the phrase non-linear linkage that

has been severely criticised by many technocritics. It is considered to be the unique

characteristic of hypertext. Many technocritics point out that linearity is inherent in

this phrase that claims to be the opposite of it. Moreover whatever may be the linkage

structure, act of reading must take place sequentially. One can read only word by

word. They find the term multilinear more appropriate as it makes linearity also a

choice offered by the hyperdocuments.

Hypertext has the ability to accommodate both text and non-textual elements

like audio and video clips. Hypertext documents also make use of digital techniques

such as laser beams, biostates, network flows, game structures, multimedia web

installations and experimental videos. Their rich linkage structure also reduces the

cognitive distance between any two points in the text. Hence instead of slogging

through the pages one can reach the destination simply by clicking on lexias. Thus to

a limited extent, readers can exercise their creative power in the composition of the

text they encounter in hypertextual environment. This is true that readers are free

only to a limited extent. Again the technological determinism as discussed earlier

leads the technocritics to claim that this new text media dissolves the distinction

between authors and readers. The characteristics of novelty, freedom and

differentiation that are associated with hypertext work to obscure the structural

kinships between codex and hypertext.

Hypertext, as many critics contend, can accommodate a number of voices,

points of view, value systems, postmodern concepts, tradition as well as modernity.

Technocritics like Landow proclaim that it is an overt practical manifestation of

heteroglossia, “ecriture feminine” and deconstruction. Many technocritics opine that

hypertextual discourse embodies heteroglossia. They consider that it provides a

medium to the submerged voices and makes them audible. Its advent is hailed by

numerous scholars and they opine that it presents an optimal medium for dialogic

communication. Bakhtin identified utterance as the primary building block of the

dialogue. Technocritics equate lexia with utterance and consider it to be the primary

building block of hypertext. According to them hypertext is a profoundly dialogic

kind of text. They argue that each thread of it is a fragment of conversation that is

subject to the influence of those threads to which it is linked, by accident or design.

Hypertext as heteroglossia, in their opinion, constitutes a collaborative mode also as it

avoids a totalizing movement towards consensus instead validating the diversity of

values and voices that are produced by a variety of individuals.

They also argue that hypertext is well in accord with the current wave of

thought as presently more emphasis is being laid on bringing to fore front the

alternative voices. The incorporation of texts written by females especially black

females, African, Asian and Afro-Asian and post-colonial writers in the syllabi of

reputed universities signals the paradigmatic shift in attitude of West towards other

countries and cultures of the world. Perhaps there is a realization now that no culture

is inherently superior or can survive in isolation. This conformity of hypertext with

contemporary literary scenario makes it all the more important.

Hypertext has been interpreted by the technocritics to be intimately related to

the realm of psychology through “ecriture feminine.” The women‟s language as

contended by critics like Kristeva and Cixous is derived from the “Chora” which

corresponds to the Real in terminology of Lacan. According to Kristeva women‟s

writing emerges from “Chora,” the place that we know from semiotic but forget when

we enter symbolic. This practice of writing, in her opinion, will subvert the hierarchy

of patriarchal discourse revolving around the concept of phallus and authority of

father. She has shifted the stress from Oedipal to pre-Oedipal phase as “Chora” or the

semiotic correspond to this phase.

Hypertext, according to some technocritics, is an overt practical manifestation

of “ecriture feminine.” They argue that the characteristics such as fragmentation,

fluidity, and multiplicity that are often associated with feminine writing are inherent

in hypertext. Hence in their opinion hypertext is capable of voicing the concerns of

feminists as well as other marginalised groups. They contend that it challenges the

domination of the androcentric construction of the mind as rational ego. It can

accommodate dissenting voices and is open to the anarchic forces of bisexual desire.

It is hence according to them a balanced and not a biased text. It seems to them

capable of striking a balance between any kind of binary opposition. They opine that

it can strike a balance between different racial, cultural and gender related issues

which is also the need of the hour.

Some technocritics are suspicious of these claims. By citing the example of

Afternoon, a Story, they argue that hyperfictions which are a type of hyperdocument,

offer very limited freedom to its readers. Though it categorised as interactive fiction

but the fact is that while navigating this fiction a reader feels herself to be as much at

the mercy of the constructor as in any difficult text, although in a different way. The
 307

place where the text refuses to default one cannot do anything but to abandon the text

and start anew. Also there are guard fields that help the author to manipulate the

reading paths or the sequence of lexias that readers will encounter. An interactive

narrative may imply some kind of user-directed story generator but when one

navigates Afternoon, it becomes evident that it does not fit into that description very

well. It offers a very limited point of view to its readers. The Storyspace software in

which Afternoon was written allows the readers to follow only those sequences that

have been laid down by the writer. This software does not allow its readers free

browsing, unlike any codex fiction in existence.

Moreover to argue that computer or computer mediated technology is in

itself capable of producing social and historical change seems to be a „ahistorical‟ and

„anthropomorphic misconception‟ to many technocritics. There is also a need to

reconsider the practice of evaluating hypertext and other categories of cybertext using

instruments of literary theory. By associating hypertext with different literary theories

and concepts the technocritics are neglecting the most fundamental question of what

exactly hypertext is. The issue is that why can‟t something that it not a part of some

predefined field be studied as an independent phenomenon? Why the Western world

is so adamant to prove that hypertext is a literary phenomenon that exemplifies and

manifests the tenets of poststructuralist theory. Such arguments will definitely

establish the legitimacy of the field of hypertext but the extent to which they will

contribute to one‟s understanding of the field is still a debatable issue.

The organization of hypertext as a network of fragments and links has obvious

potential benefits. It allows the readers to approach a specific point of interest by a

series of narrowing choices by simply clicking on the screen with the mouse. This

allows for much more convenient use than the codex where transition between two
 308

non-adjoining places can be slow and distractive. But for such a trait to be useful, the

text in question must contain the need for such for such a transition as an intrinsic

figure. Of course there is no denying of the fact that there are interesting side effects

and novel possibilities that result from the migration from one medium to another, but

hypertext in the opinion of many technocritics is not all that different from the old

world of print, pen and paper. Jumping around and among the text fragments cannot

be considered the same as creating a new text, argue many technocritics.

The difference between paper texts and computer generated texts is not very

clear. In fact one wonders if at all any such difference exists and if at all exists, it

should be described in functional rather than material or historical terms.

Further the claim that hypertext provides a platform to marginalised groups to

voice their dissent is also refuted by many technocritics and marginalised groups

themselves. Before embarking upon the task of an analysis of the potential of

hypertext for providing a medium to suppressed voices, one must consider the number

or the percentage of population that has access to computers and computer mediated

technology. A majority of the population of the so called Third World countries leads

a life of penury and dejection. They struggle to make both ends meet. The condition

of the women and children in these counties is even worse. Most of the women are

illiterate and lead a life devoid of even basic amenities. How hypertext and computer

mediated technology can make any difference to their lives. What can hypertext offer

to populations struggling with soaring prices and slumping economies.

Feminist critics, as some technocritics argue, may make productive use of the

characteristic of multiplicity associated with hypertext but this practice does not make

multiplicity a de facto critique of patriarchy. This multiplicity may very well work

against the feminist goals. By reducing women to fragments like womb, breasts or
 309

legs etc. hypertext will perpetuate what it is meant to subvert. One cannot afford to get

overwhelmed by the multiplicity and negate the apparent significance of wholeness

which will make print as important a medium for expressing female subjectivity as

hypertext. Some feminists oppose the association of feminine subjectivity with

fragmentation on the ground that it is now only that women have started to gain some

sense of the self. Associating fragmentation with the concept of self at this stage will

only serve to undermine the achievements of the feminists. Some feminists perceive

hypertext exclusively as a white male-dominated realm of technology. This is so

because most of the technocritics are either whites or males. Some feminist critics

hence perceive hypertext as perpetuating the patriarchal domination rather than

subverting it.

Moreover it can be argued that as the access to this technology is limited

hence rather than voicing the concerns of marginalised groups or of the people in

general, it can blast the majority into silence. In countries like China where

unrestrained access to information is not allowed and free dispersal of information is

checked by the government itself, hypertext and other computer mediated

technologies have a very limited role to play. Technocritics like Bolter and Nelson

contend that hypertext will further enhance the process of gradual erosion of social

hierarchies in the West by opposing standardization and hierarchy. But Landow is

more cautious about these revolutionary claims. He also considers the possibility that

a decentered culture might overwhelm the critical voices, yielding not a rainbow

coalition but a majority blasted into silence by the explosion of electronic discourse.

Such assertions cannot be ignored while assessing the claims made regarding a

medium‟s potential for bringing about radical social and political transformations.
 310

Hypertext no doubt has the potential to enhance the discussions of feminists

and other marginalised sections of society. Its capabilities and associations can prove

to be very useful tools in the hands of a skilled craftsman. But that does not suggest

that the other media like codex are incapable of achieving the same affect. By

projecting hypertext as better than codex will only give rise to debates of particularly

fetish nature. Hyperfictions can only become relevant to our current world and their

widely praised ramifications on femininity, deconstruction and polyphony etc. can be

rescued from a life on the fringes of literary study only if they are not projected as

different but as remediated companions to codex.

Hypertext and other computer mediated technologies mark not a terminus but

a transition. Some technocritics contend that that computer is simply a medium for

carrying literacy into a new age. These arguments do not undermine the significance

of the this technology but simply assert that though hypertext does not represent “end

of books” as proclaimed by Coover still the foundations of print media are bound to

be shaken a bit by this new media. This hybrid, smooth-striated writing space of

hypertext may well be a first step towards cyborganism which is perhaps the ultimate

transversal of rhizome and machine.