CHAPTER

13
Hyperfiction: Explorations in
Texture
Claudia Ferradas Moi

I leave to the various futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths.

(Jorge Luis Borges, The Garden of Forking Paths)

Time and technology have a funny way of changing our attitudes. McLuhans
take on print media is that it created our sequential way of thinking. Whos
to say we wont simply evolve along with our media and shed our linear
bias like an old skin? Once a new, computer-bred generation becomes
comfortable living in a systems-oriented world, the idea of reading non-
sequential fiction might seem as logical as 1233.
(George Melrod, Digital Unbound)

Hypertext and Hyperfiction: Reading Down Forking Paths

In the 1960s, 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 non-sequential linking of texts. In the same effervescent
decade, both literary theory and computer science were taking steps towards the
system- atization of textual forms that cited other texts what Gerard
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 made
Nelsons docuverse a concrete possibility and his notion of hypertext a
reality. 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 edu-
cation, 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 it, hypertext is a digital reality
rather than abstract theoretical construct: computer hypertext is defined as
text composed of blocks
222 Claudia Ferradas Moi

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: 3).
Fascinated by the challenge offered by electronic hyperlinks, the American
writer Michael Joyce came up with the idea of applying hypertext to the writing
of 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: 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 the 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 or panels (which may be called lexias using Roland
Barthes terminology, as applied in Landow, 1992) 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 its a bit
disorienting, thats 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: 163)

By definition, hyperfiction is strikingly open-ended. This empowers the

reader, as s/he 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, appropriately called Work in Progress:

WORK IN PROGRESS
Closure is, as in any fiction, a suspect quality, although here it is made
mani- fest. 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 doesnt 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.
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 223

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
writers but the readers role in the creation of that artifice, as well as the
arbitrary nature of the paths that may lead to it, for hypertext fiction is a
question of texture, or, as Mary-Kim Arnold (1993) has expressed it, Words
that yield to the touch the mediating touch of a mouse.
Now, what words will yield if the reader clicks on them? Joyces explanation in
afternoon, a story seems to have established the metaphor:

READ AT DEPTH
I havent indicated what words yield, but they are usually ones which
have texture

So, once again, it is the reader who decides which words have texture, which
bear a tempting quality, a multi-layered promise that invites exploration . . .
and wherever s/he decides to click, s/he is unlikely to be disappointed.

The nomadic movement of ideas is made effortless by the electronic

medium that makes it easy to cross borders (or erase them) with the swipe
of a mouse, carrying as much of the world as you will on the etched arrow
of light that makes up a cursor . . . Each iteration breathes life into a
narrative of possibil- ities, as Jane Yellowlees Douglas says of hypertext
fiction, so that, in the third or fourth encounter with the same place, the
immediate encounter remains the same as the first, [but] what changes
is [our] understanding. The text becomes a present tense palimpsest
where what shines through are not past versions but potential, alternate
views. (Joyce, 1995: 3)

Reconfiguring Reading
Like Tennysons Lady of Shalott, the reader weaves the magic web of
narrative possibilities, aware of the chilling power of choice. S/he advances,
down the labyrinth of forking paths that Borges (1941) once imagined,
sometimes at a loss, sometimes helped by Ariadnes thread (if s/he chooses
to consult the map, chart, treemap or outline of links between lexias). But no
matter how s/he chooses to do it, the encounter with the Minotaur is a
challenge to the stability of the traditional concepts of text, author and
reader.
Delany and Landow (1991: 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.
224 Claudia Ferradas Moi

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 . . . Ariadnes thread
is there, but 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:
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 materi- ality 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. The reader as producer of the
text advocated by Barthes (1970), the active reader of Umberto Ecos open
work (1962), the Derridean emphasis upon discontinuity and decentring
(Derrida, 1967), all find concrete realization in hyperfiction. So does
Bakhtins conception of dialogism and multivocality (1984), 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 ones
reading path (Landow, 1992: 11).

Reconfiguring Education
All this has far-reaching implications for education in general and for
literary education in particular. Pulverness (1996: 73), advocating a
dialogical approach to the teaching of literature, remarks:

When the reader adds his or her voice to the host of voices present in the
text, s/he experiences the peculiar intimacy of reading and each reader
constructs the meaning of the text afresh. Just as words do not mean
without context, the literary text does not contain meaning, determined by
the writer, which it is the readers task to extract.

This conception has been (and frequently still is) veiled by layers of
respect for the mythical authority of writers, critics and literature teachers.
Even in class- rooms where the existence of multiple readings is
acknowledged, there is often
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 225

an underlying belief in the superiority of the teachers learned reading,

derived from the critics monopoly of interpretation. Hyperfiction is an
empowering tool, for it 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 teachers!) 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
authors work, they can discover multiple combinations and can actually
type notes on a smaller window 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 dialogue with the text becomes an intertext that merges with the reading
lexias. The reader activates procedural skills to make sense not only of
discourse but of the constructive web behind it (which involves awareness
of deconstruction).

Hyperfiction in the EFL Class

What contributions can this kind of literature make to a learner-centred
class- room where literature is integrated with the teaching of English as
a foreign language within a dialogical approach to reading? How can the
reading experi- ence be integrated with writing and oral activities that are
meaningful? What materials can teachers and students develop using
hypertext writing programs and applications?
Experimentally, as the initial stage in a research project, ten advanced
EFL students met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to discuss their reading of two
hypertext stories: Lust by Mary-Kim Arnold (1993) and I Have Said Nothing by
J. Yellowlees Douglas (1993). The workshop covered three sessions of three
hours each. In the first session, students were introduced to hyperfiction and
helped to become familiar with the mechanics and conventions involved. In
the second session, they discussed the experience of reading Lust. It was not
surprising to see that several of them had printed their version to bring the
text to be analysed (although you can only print one screen per page, so
that the jigsaw puzzle format still remains). The results of the session can
be summarized into two main (apparently contradictory) areas:

a. when participants were asked to reflect on their reading experience in

writ- ing, the word frustrating was the most recurrent adjective in
their com- ments. The reason for this feeling was ascribed to their
incapacity to come to terms with the technology involved:
226 Claudia Ferradas Moi

. they would have preferred to turn the page;

. they wanted to know where they were going;
. they could not get to the end, even though they arbitrarily put an end
to the reading process at some point;
. they found dead ends when they did want to go on.

b. when asked to comment on the characters they had met and their
rela- tionships, as well as on the events those characters were involved in,
they were, on the other hand, evidently enthusiastic, as they were
delighted to find that:

. they all had a different story to tell;

. they had read the same names but met different people;
. though the events were usually the same, their different position in the
sequence resemanticized them: used to the Aristotelian notion of plot
understood as a causally related sequence, readers tend to interpret
events in the light of what precedes or follows them.

In short: there was a lot to talk about and no one could be said to own the
right
interpretation.
Lust can hardly be defined as a narrative, even when sequentially printed:
it is poetic prose. Students found that the common ground in their
readings was connected with certain recurrent motifs (nakedness, a child, a
knife, the night, touching) and the images associated with them. They were
particularly interested in the polyphonic use of the word fabric and the
lexical chain texture blanket carpet cotton wool, which they found to be
metatextually related to the textual fabric, the story they were invited to
weave.
For the third session, participants were asked to read I Have Said Nothing
and to record their reading hypotheses, expectations and comments in
writing as they advanced. They returned two weeks later, eager to meet the
rest of the group.
I Have Said Nothing is an apparently conventional report of a fatal car
accident (or two?), retold from different points of view, sometimes in
morbid detail. Though car crashes can be said to have become recurrent in
hyperfiction, this story explores the blank screen, silence as a resource, the
power of what is left unsaid . . . it is a huge information gap that the reader
fills in passionately. Take, for example, the following lexia:

ANATOMY
Do you know what happens when a Chevy Nova with a 280 engine hits
you going 75 miles an hour?

Depending on what word you click on, or on whether you decide to take
the easy or lazy option and press ENTER, you can get the morbid
details referred to above
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 227

ANATOMIZED
It fractures your collarbone; your scapula; your pelvis; your sacral,
lumbar, thoracic and cervical vertebrae.

It splinters your ribcage, compressing your liver, kidneys, spleen,

stom- ach, intestines, lungs and heart.

It fractures your skull and bruises your brain.

It causes massive haemorrhaging, throws the heart into cardiac

arrest and hurls your central nervous system into profound shock.

or a sequence of succinct statements.

EVERY ONE
It breaks every bone in your
body. Including your head.
Then you pass on to the central question

AND THEN . . .

And then . .
. Nothing.

At this point, no matter how many times you press ENTER you cannot
advance: you have reached a dead end. A meaningful joke, which reminds
you of the title of the story: I Have Said Nothing! You then click on nothing
and manage to get another narrative sequence, only to find that you soon come
across this cryptic lexia:

Literally, the narrator says nothing, and that is probably why, once the
computer is turned off, there is a lot to talk about!
When discussing their reading of this story, participants agreed that the
sense of frustration had diminished or disappeared altogether, which they
ascribed to the following:

. they were now better acquainted with the reading habits involved in hyper-
fiction;
. the author had provided schematic maps for those who wanted that sort of
help;
. they could reconstruct a narrative line in a way that Lust did not allow them to
228 Claudia Ferradas Moi

(they did not need to face the difficulties posed by poetic prose and hyper-
fiction at the same time).

The second and third points seem to suggest some kind of nostalgia for
the reading habits print technology and traditional linear stories require.
As a pilot experience in the use of hyperfiction with EFL students, the
work- shop 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 (as I Have Said
Nothing does) rather than a more radically avant-garde one (such as Lust)
. 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
commit-
ment 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 is particularly encouraging for the more
insecure students, who 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 readers 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 col- laborative learning)

All this seems to suggest that hyperfiction can make important contributions
to the learner-centred EFL class. Apart from its value concerning awareness-
raising, hyperfiction can lead to

. the meaningful retelling of a students reading (asking the others to

provide
closure and then comparing their suggestions to the ending s/he
reached)
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 229

. 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
. meaningful role-play activities (dialogues between characters in the
different
versions)

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.
At present, however, no hyperfiction materials seem to be available to suit
the needs of EFL students whose standard of English is not considerably
advanced. This is an inviting challenge for those teachers who are
encouraged by the pos- sibilities of electronic materials design. Can
hypertext writing programs be used for students to develop their own stories
in class? Again experimentally, I observed a class of 5 upper intermediate
EFL students in Buenos Aires give that kind of program a try.

Just what it is to be literate in social terms is becoming increasingly complex

and elusive. While multimedia and digital technologies are redefining
literacy, issues of equity also become more pressing . . . The new literacies
need to include the capacity to read and write the new
technologies, and to understand what is entailed in the operation,
reception and production of their texts. (Beavis, 1998: 244)

If Read[ing] and writ[ing] the new technologies involves dealing with

hypertext, I thought that producing simple hypertexts in class could begin to
throw light on different aspects of the hyperreading and hyperwriting
process in a foreign lan- guage and contribute to the development of the new
literacies identified by Beavis.
The project involved the following skills and steps; as seen in Table
13.1. Initially, we were worried by the fact that the task of writing a short
hyperfiction piece involved the use of a hypertext writing program.
However, students took no time at all to learn how to use the basic functions
of the program. They showed an exploratory learning mode (not once did
they ask to be given a set of previous instructions) and those with better
PC skills collaborated with the others, who, in turn, paid more attention to
editing. Yet, in spite of being an upper intermediate group, they still
needed a lot of help from the teacher when editing (they did not notice they
had failed to conjugate most verbs!), probably because the creation of a
story with multiple paths required all their attention. Even punctuation
and spelling were overlooked in early drafts, which seems to suggest that
content rather than accuracy was the focus of students attention. This was
our main aim, and editing could wait.
230 Claudia Ferradas Moi

Table 13.1 Skills and steps in hyperreading and hyperwriting

Hyperreading Familiarization with web

search
Skimming
Scanning
Reflecting on Authorship, reader
links
independence, etc.
Familiarization with
hyperfiction
Hyperwriting Producing hyperfiction Using a hypertext
program
Revision Draftin
g
Editing
Linking Peer correction

Hyperreading Browsing for revision

Hyperwriting Revision Draftin
g
Editing
Peer correction
Hyperreading Peer feedback

When they evaluated the experience, students found it motivating and did not
think the program was an obstacle. According to the assessment interview at the
end of the project, they thought it had been positive in terms of language
learning because they had edited their texts again and again, had discussed the
different options they would offer to the reader (though they used the L1 quite
often), had learnt new vocabulary and had found the activity original
and challenging. However, they had also found it time-consuming: they
devoted two ninety-minute classes to the story-writing process and the results
were dis- appointingly simple, with very few links except for those that led the
reader down parallel lines in a forking structure. Besides, there were obvious
mistakes they discovered when reading their peers work: How can he say I
died immediately if he is already dead?
This showed an interesting metacognitive leap. They reflected on

. the value of an activity for language learning

. the way a story is built and their strong dependence as readers on traditional
linear narrative: This is too simple: we know what the end will be
X: He gave him the money. No, no, he punched him
Y: Well, here he can do both!
X: Ah, yes!
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 231

. the clues they should not give the reader in order to keep suspense
. the way narrative paths could intersect to create a more interesting story

The students took the whole idea as a game and seemed to enjoy it. They
even wanted to go on working outside class, which means that if we could
find ways of training students to use the hypertext program and give them
enough time, we could begin to throw light on some of their hyperreading
and hyperwriting operations.
In fact, we may even do without a hypertext writing program. Word
processors can be used today to establish links from one word to another or
from one text to another. This can help students write their own creative
hypertextual pieces or even develop critical insights into other texts they
have read by establishing intertextual relationships between texts or with
their own comments. These can then be uploaded on to a class web page
for other readers to share.
I have seen a teacher (who was training students to sit for the IGCSE
Literature exam) achieve amazing results by inviting students to hyperlink
stories they had written to the texts they had read using a word processor.
They not only estab- lished links to quotations from the different texts which
were thematically linked to their stories or which had influenced them in
some way: they also built hypertextual webs that connected their texts to
web pages, to quotations from songs or to other texts which they thought
were in some way related to their own. Justifying such links was not only
good training for the exam essays, in that students were providing relevant
evidence to support the points they were mak- ing, it also trained them to
think critically about the nature of the links we follow whenever we click on
the hyperlinks established by others.
In any case, these are just early attempts to develop the literacies
demanded by new technologies. 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, for all my
enthusiasm, I expect further studies to consider some of the fears and open
questions expressed by the participants in the first experimental workshop:

. How satisfying is the reading of a permanently inconclusive work? Can

the frustration of visiting the same textual place again and again be
overcome with considerations on how the lexia can be reinterpreted in
each new occurrence?
. Up to what extent is the reader free to choose where he is going? How
much veiled manipulation on the part of the author is there when pre-
programmed
paths determine where links lead?
. Does hyperfiction really challenge our concept of narrative? Can we do
away with the narrative line, subscribing to fragmentary video clip
aesthetics or are we putting the chunks together, jigsaw puzzle style, only
to reconstruct some form of narrative line?
232 Claudia Ferradas Moi

. 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
devel- oping countries, where access and know-how are still the privilege
of a few? Does this contribute to McLuhans global village or to a
world whose dis- tribution of power (and empowering knowledge) is
becoming more and more unfair?
. Will screens ever replace books? How will a reading artefact look, feel,
smell
. . . in years to come? And how is that likely to change our perception of
the world in general?

It will certainly involve much more than the swipe and click of a mouse to
understand how, in education in general, and in the EFL class in particular,
the elusive attraction of the virtual can contribute to the improvement of the
actual.

References
Arnold, M. (1993) Lust. Computer disc. The Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertext,
1 (2), Winter 1994.
Bakhtin, M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics. Edited and translated by
Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Barthes, R. (1970) S / Z. Paris: Editions du Seuil. S / Z (1976). Translated by
Richard Miller, NY: Hill and Wang.
Beavis, C. (1998) Computer games, culture and curriculum, in I. Snyder
(ed.) Page to Screen Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 23455.
Borges, J. L. (1941) The garden of forking paths (trans. Donald A. Yates),
in
Labyrinths. New York: New Directions (1964); London: Penguin (1970).
Culler, J. (1983) On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism.
London: Routledge.
Delany, P. and Landow, G. (1991) Hypertext, hypermedia and literary
studies: the state of the art, in P. Delany and G. Landow (eds). Hypermedia
and Literary Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Derrida, J. (1967) De la Grammatologie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuir. Of Gram-
matology (1976). Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Eco, U. (1962) LOpera Aperta. Milan: Bompiani.
Genette, G. (1962) Palimpsestos: la literatura en segundo grado. Madrid: Taurus
(1989).
Iser, W. (1971) Indeterminacy and the readers response. Quoted in K.
M. Newton (ed.) (1988) Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader. London:
Mac- millan Education.
Joyce, M. (1990) afternoon, a story. Computer disc. Cambridge, MA: Eastgate
Press. Joyce, M. (1995) Of Two Minds: Hypertext Pedagogy and Poetics. Ann
Arbor: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
 13. Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture 233

Landow, G. (1992) Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical

The- ory and Technology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Melrod, G. (1994) Digital Unbound. Details, October, 1625 and 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. 6985.
Yellowlees Douglas, J. (1993) I Have Said Nothing. Computer disc. The Eastgate
Quarterly Review of Hypertext, 1 (2), Winter 1994.
Yellowlees Douglas, J. (1994) The quick and the dirty reading I Have
Said Nothing. The Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertext, 1 (2), Winter 1994.