hypertext as form vs. hypertext as technique

[sleepingjpb]

There's an interesting debate on the topic of hypertext happening at if: book right now, in which Ben Vershbow, the author of the post, makes the claim that hypertext is not viable as a literary form. Something about the post got my hackles up, and I began to feel like it hinged on a too-rigid definition of what "hypertext" is. I kicked the idea

Comments

[anaskyfish]

An aspect of the Eastgate/StorySpace/Interactive Fiction/Hypertext As Form model of hypertext that makes it distinct from the hypertext as technique sense is that with HAF a linear reading is (generally) *impossible*: the increased agency of the reader is not an option, it's a demand, and if that demand is not satisfied the reading can't take place. In a Choose Your Own Adventure novel you *have* to choose; in Zork you *have* to take an action, or else the reading is over. This isn't the case with Pavic or the Torah; while you don't have to read it from beginning to end that is always an option; increased agency is a choice. In this sense, general hypertext is an additional layer of interaction rather than an entirely different approach, and it's the sense of multiple modes of understanding and connection which provides the enjoyable/vertiginous sense of depth that Vershbow seems to be looking for (and not finding) in his definition of hypertext

[sleepingjpb]

with HAF a linear reading is (generally) *impossible*: the increased agency of the reader is not an option, it's a demand, and if that demand is not satisfied the reading can't take place.

Hm! I hadn't thought about that; it's a very good point.