Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies

edited by

GAIL E. HA\\1SHER CYNTHIA l. SELFE

l-'TAH STATE U~t\'ERSITI PRESS Logan, Utah

NATl01'AL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH Urbana, Illinois

CHAPTFR SINF:

Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines

James Sosnoski

N 1JT : '~!"G . .\GOi, J 'l'T A OOLLL\CUE AT ASOTHf& U'l\'.USm~ AS EUCTRO~"JC

:.-.1 of pap« · . " h•d bttn pootod on a li>~n. The next d.iy I rt<ei\'ed a m<>,•gc :rom him a~kmg if I could mail him a prini.d ttrsion of the pap« ~<JU~ he found re.iding lengthv lcJ<l> on a computer screen an unpleasant <Xpctltn<C. Though .. "'"' incom-rnitnl, I seal him tht r<qUt'>l<d rnntouL Whm I b.:µ.n 10 drah tiw <>Sa\' a t .... • .Ur> later. I - remindtd of how ohen frinld> remark to me 1ti.1 th~· don't like to read from their monitors and I realized how tdling Jn incident thi! wa•. A\'ersion> to reading on "r<en, I sus· pe<I, >re widespread; few persons of my acquaintance emoy reading long texts on thdr monitors. :"lonctheless, reading electronic text> on screeru is likdi· to ~ thr prrdominant mode of rading in the \'er'' near future. Thi> essay rc6ccts upon '"~~ po.sibility and the W3\'S in which computrr-a.s1>t<d reading ii already bci;mning to dominate our practic<>. Future •dvmces in technology art likd" to bring u< pockd computers with the look ;>nd f~l of books and to pim1Je for us not only the text but abo loads of cumplementary materials. This ic.:h~· ...-ii.I proo2b~· begin with the com·ersion of hea,y, unportable manual;, rncydopedth. md other referenc< works into <Iii.ks which cm =ily 61 int<> pocket computers not much he.-ier than most w.illds. •

Leavmg these possibilities a<idc, howe\'er. let us consider the computer-assisted reading we currently do. Most persons who work \\1th word pr.xminll software re.J quite a bit from their computer screen. and their roading ;, often of the book-length \'.&r1rtv. Though many p«SOn• print out a final draft btcause they prefer to revix their work in print, they prob•bl)' haYe read the texts they print out twenl\' or thirty timei b<forehand in the process of composing on the screen. If the trend continue;, r .... · persons w1! rrint out their own rnanuscriph in order to re"..e; but thh is only "the tip oi th<: ice­berg• of ch.an~. There are innumerable other in<1ances of sattn ~ read­ing and they are incrta>ing at a rapid rile. :-;~ I mention thJI the World \\'ide Web is a vast (hyper )text that we read with such increasmg frequencr that it has become difficult as the d•~· wears on to dial up one's account in order 10 access the Web beause so m....y of its r<llders are already onlme.

1~2 /a>nLS So•no•b

Though at present only a few J'<l'l<'n• rt•d extensi..-ely from computer Krttra, thru numbtt will surely increase. I fed ctrtlin that =y pnson> will (Omt to prefer computer-a<>i>ted r.ading !CARI-~OI only do 'I read ID). own work (this essay for aamplt), but I also read tht "wk o( colleagues from my comput<r SCfttlL ThoU>aJtcis of nnm mn"1gt> .atri\'t in my account, ><>mt or thtm paptrs stnt to me irom coll<agu<> that I read as word-processing d<><.'ll · ments downloaded to my hard dri•-e. Though I u..J to print long documents out, I no longer do so. In fact, I pref<r reading them from m)' word-proas<ing program becaust I usually am a•ked to comment on them and I like to insert comments in the fi le sent to me and return it to its author or editor. For me, computrr-assisted rt>ading infuse; my work. For txampl<, I wrote an arude on tl1e work of the same colleague who a<ked me for the printout of the paper I had emailed him. It was constructed by star<hing for'themes• common to his mmr essd!"S and books which I was abk to as"'111ble quite rapidl)· sinct I had all or his work s.."allned into my computer .. I used Zrmdn, a commrrcial indexing program, to find c•·cryth1ng he had ...a.id •bout the issues I planned to di>CU•<. In this instance, Zyindn: was a crudal roemion of my reading a«­Th1> expenmce left an indelible and \'tt)' po>iti'T imprts>ion on mt. It ..-ould not be an ~ration to ~y that It inspired llili o=y smcc m~· reading was atended by what is commonly known a.• "seuch engin<-" This seems to be a type of reading which has emtrp'd from our use< of the technologies of rm ing but Uttle is known about tt.

In "The Effect of Hypertnt on Pro.;e>S<s or Reading and Writing," Davida Charne)' re,·iews educational and r>V<hologkal research on reading that bears on hypertexts, point1ng out that "liule re<earch has been conducted o(

the actual effect or hypertext on reading· (2501. Most of the research she sur· vc)·s is based on reading prmt and •he ha~ lo draw the implications from it for designers of hypertexts. But ncn 1n th< rest.arch that is a\'ailable on rr.id· er>' responS<S to h"J>ertexts, it 1hould be noted that the research is conducted Oil hypertn:u that are designed to accampli•h a particular goal-usually 10

convey <pecific information to a target audience. The kind o l computer-assisted reading to ,.·h1ch I refer goes beyond situations in ..-hid! persons a«tsS a "discrete" hypertat d6igncd with them as a target audi­ence, for instance "expository" hypert<it\ aimed at upptr In-el collq:c stu­dents which feature information related to course materials.' The o~ publisht>d in online journal> rnch as K.Jiros are instances of discrete h~1'er­tcxts read on scrttn. I find that m)' own scrttn-based, computer-.i<•i,ted reading practices go beyond the.c s.:enario<. Searching the Web is probably the be<t example. When I employ a <earch engine to deli•·er information for me on topics such as .. cultural studlr1..,"' mr reading experience. a.s I visit the sites listed in the search r.-ults. is not <0 wdl defined as a visit to the Kairo1 or Info World sites. The expericnc< i• doser to what Johndan Johnson· Eilola caullons us about in !\·oualgir An.~tls or to what Geoffrey Sire articulates in chapter ten of this book.

H1prr· TNtkrs and ''°"' RlaJmg fntin"' 16)

In Sire·• ac.:ount, rc;iding a teleintertat is not an C\Ttlt structUred by the effort> of h)-p<rtm designer\ .. 11o anrrnpt to create appropnatc path> for read· ers.' This f\'J'<' of rming "allol-'S for DO Jogic~1hing I that) comes 3'.-.0SS the screen li neutralized into dectronic information. We are in a post-exchan~-value-apo..-aJYJ'O" in whkh the onlr ,·aJuc 1> ....,_,-.Jue· (9) In such r<ading n:ptrien'n. • M•teri.11 u chose:n not because it's a privileg<J text, a •difficult' mliterpic:.;c from the 0 1ustory or writing: but becaust if> ta<ily .. -ail­able. It'> whatever iuu notke out of the comer of one's e)T from the endlessly-<hifting screen in front of )IOU" (9). In "X-Ray \~sion and Ptrp<'tuJ! Motion: Hypertext as Postmodern Space," chapter fi"e o( hb No1ralgic .Angels, Johnson-Eilobl describes the textuality of the reading experience to which I rcr.r.

The normal hiemchial arrJJ1gemcnt or reiding time rq:ulating <pall•I mo"<­ment becom" inwncd "' thU .rticulauon of posrmodern space, with •r•ce ponioning out time, regulating time ( the time or the ridwa\' """'"$«). Thinkin!' about hn><rtnt in thi• way, re~ers arc no longer rdimt <>n the wnttr to kad them t<mp<>ralli· from border to border in the span of. we (Chiu<tr • tra-·ders to Cmttrbury CU\niog -ra.:e.,i:h time); readers'""' arolllld. d«on· stnm and build, mo•·e O\'tf and unckr. exurior and interior.'

It Sttllb fitting to rder to the practice of r<ading the po<tmodem <pact ~1r< terms the "te!eintmext• ;u

0 h)·per-reading." Howewr, ..-e probably should introdu'° a distinetion among h)-per-readings that paralleb Mkhul Joyce's distinction bct..<tn exploratory and constructi"t hypertexts (~1 · 12). The exploratory (or expo>1tory) hrpertext is a "delivery or presentational tc;:hnol­ogy" that provide11 read)' acce;; to information. By contra.t, constructl\'e byperteXts are "anal)1k tools" that allow writers to invent and/or map relauom among bit> of information to suit their own needs. The type of hyper-reading I describe here is "conmuctivt." t:nder>tanding that when I u<e the expres;ion •hyper-reading·· in thii CW}'. I rtfcr to its ·constructi\·e .. a>pecl>. \'tf c.an 'ilY that it differ. from reading printed tn:ts or expository hypertext> in sevnal ways. Hypcr-r<ading 1> charact<ri1cd h)~'

I. fil1mng: a h:ghcr dtpee of l<'le.."IJ\itv m readin!' (and therefore) ~. skimming: l<U lat k'tiWly read 3. pc.;lang-a l<>s tineu xqunidag of pa,;ages read {. imp<»ing: ku contauahutfon dtri\·cd from the tat and more from read ·

ttly intention 5. filming-th<• , . . but I .. ,.. the film" response which implie. th11 .ignificant

meaning is drn"·ed m<lrt' from graphical drmmts as from Ycrb.al C"icmcnt~ of the text

6. tre~pa~1,ing: loo~n1nK of textUJ.l boundaries 7. de-authori11ng: .IC1scning sc:RK" of .authorship and authorly int('n1ion 8. frag.me-nting: brt"..tkingtcx:l} into notes rather than rtg.11ding 1htn1 U l"U<&\''•

ankles. or booki •

164 Jama Sosno.s.b

In many anti-tech quartcn, th~ diffa<n.,,, wi11 be perceived •> losses Though I am not of thi, opinion. I w1>h to rem•in .tlen to the limitations of h~r-rttding wluch <.tn be ,;cwcJ ma numb.:r of contexts (for insi.n~. in teadung research methods) a. a loss o( .tuthonhip. of ~rt"OQ. of muning, of dq>th, of context, and so c>n. In f\°Ojtalpc Angru Johndan lohruon-Llof.t rrminch us that "Dismantling the t«hnologv of the print book does not n«n­:>arily rem°'" the ><>Ci.ti force. that wkul.ued the clu.sk book-ten Hypennt might be capable of orche.tnting the read.r/writer mo .. rment mott effec. tively than a print te:ct. - Jn this b'-')'· howe\'cr, I am concemtd \\1th the "''Y> in which hyper-ttaden can "dismantle the technology of the print book." r subscribe to the notion that we '"" in a po.imodern era and that we cannot operate on the com·entions that governed the reading practices of previous gtnerations. •

Baudrillard ttmarks that •we live in a ""rid where there is more and mort information, and less and In> meaning 179).

IU1b<r than ere.ting communication, •• . (information) exhausts 1tsdf in the •.:t of si.ging comrnunlcation 'Rathtr than producing meaning, it <Xh•wh itself in lhc suging of rnuning. A gig;antk pro.:es. of simulation that h •tty f>mi!Ur. Tbe oondittctJ, .. intcni...-, spccdi, llitmers "ilo caD in. particip.uioo .tt e.ery le>-d, bbd;;rn.,J through i.p«<h: "You uc COD<nned. !""arc tbe <''Cot, nc." Morc and more inform.ttion is in> adcd by dus kind of phantom contrnl, this homcopathic grofung. thU 11•-.krun11 dream of communication. A circul.ir arrangrmmt through whi<h onc ~uges the desire of lhc audl<DCe, thc antJth<· a.Irr of communication. \\'hi"-h Mont J.no"'·~ h n~r anrthing but tht ttcycJing m thc ncgatiw of the traditJonal im111ut1on, the mtcgratt<j circuit of tho n<ga· 1tv .. 1mmense energies arc deployed to hold this simulacrum at ba)·, to ••"td the brutal desirnulation that would confront us in the fau of thc obvious rcality of a radical loss of mearung. (80)

Though Baudrillard mal<n he, point 1n • somcwhat hyperbolic manner, it is well takm. For example. prt>id<ntial deb.11cs •re no longer meaningful rom­muni.:ations; they "stage thc d<Sirc. ofthrir audimccs" ( c.g., lo>.·cr taus ). One might add that public lisutt->·s mor< olicn >ta~ paformances of thrir di.cus­sanb th•n mcaningfully rontril>~te to our undel'>tanding of !he &ucs undcr disamion. S•'nchronous "Wk" in computtr labs.. ML'DS, MOOS, and inter..:· Ii•-. lniernet games might be dcscribtd u integr.tttd circuits r<C)tiing m thc ncgatn-e of our institution.ti tr•d11Jons. And, linally, the World Widc Wd> mar be the ulrimate "antitheater of romrnunk:•tion." ,o\s Baudrillard puts it, "infor­mation de\•ours it o\\·n contr-nt~ (80 ,1. 8t"C.."au31e reJ.dtn chara.cteristicaUy navi­gate textual landscape> br searchmg lhem for .key words and thus oftcn omitting passages that do not "match," hn><r-reading will be labeled "subjec­tive; ··su~rficial," and "de-contextualiud." The changes in academic wruing and reading brought about by computing •rt a mindield for scholM$. We ne-.d

H1P<r-r<Wkrs and th<ir RcoJ'"f fJtg1~ IM

10 loate lhac traps in ordcr 10 make our paths navigable. The cffon "' chut ,;abk routes lhrough the wildernn> of information Iha! •urrounJs u, will sur~· be wt>nh our time and <n<rg)-.

In .. ·hat fono..s. I conftgurt mr h~-pcr-rttding practices u a way of ddin­cating a new t<rr.ain for futur< iil\-estigatiom. Though I ttadily adna...ied~c that mmy persons do not like tn rcad from thcir screcr.• at thU tim<, I a.<umc that o,·er a pt:riod ol timc, th< puctice will become so habitual that it will 11ttm •narural"-iu>t a< ii now <c<ms customary 10 we a romputrr rathcr than a iypewnter. Because I enjoy rcading from my screen and pttf<r It to readmg print, m m•· account, hypcr-reading is a rewarding expcricnce be.:ause it extends my ability to re•d. (I might add, for !ht record, that ha:. not d1~placed my reading of printed texts.) After delineaung the practice of computer-misted rudmg, I balance the sunn)' picture I draw of the hyper-rcading hori<on b)' in><rting some rain clouds. concluding with rtflcc· lions on the impliQtion> of .-quiring new habits of rcading. I begin my .ke1<h wilh thc chara<temtiu of con<iruCU\'t hyper-reading I listed abo'"·

J. Filtering

Readin~f whatr>-.:r sort-is a p~ of selection- To c-·ery 1<11 r<aders bnng sdlcma or framing no1ions that focus their attentton on some but not all of !he markcd features of the text and which .tlso supply non·lingubtic du<> not markcd Ui the tnt,. If I bdir>-.: a 1at is a romancc, certain of its fraturc. stand oat. If I beli<'>"< it to be a drama, olhers do. Charactas art gi'-m diUermt posture> in my 1magma1ion and cenain passages !cap up from the page or screen. The impact ot such framing on readers is nicely captured in Stanley Fish's justly famous upenmcnt rccountcd in ls T11ere a Text 111 this Clem? M he tells the story, Fish taught two course> back to back in lhe same danroom. The first was a course in lingumics and the second in 17th century poetry. M the students ome into the poetry class, they saw what appeattd to be a 17th cen­tury emblcm poem on the blackboard. In fact, it was a list of linguist> which happened a"identallr to look bke a cross. The ine>Jtable occurred: the ponry class quit< su-.:essfully reJd the li>t of names as if it were a poem proviJmg anecdotal .-id<n« for foh·s theses about ttading comrnunitics. During this C\'ent Fish's '1udcn1> in their efforts 10 assemble a <tructurc of meaning u~ J

frame\<vrk which was not "i.n" lhe tat on the board in order to in1<rprt1 it> feature>. M ioberiton of th< worL of Fish and other readm11 lhcorins. mo>I teachcrs now readily admit 1h11 ttading i< a highly sd<rtiVC! process, one in which the m•ioritr of details are forgotten, leaving lhc readcr 10 be rnntent with plot <umm.i.ri._, thumbnail characterizations, rcp,...nt•ti"e kencs, and Iheme;, most of thcm mcmoral>I< because they can be as.imilated into what Frank Smilh taught u. to call "cognitivt structures" (71 ).

Hyper-reading of the "constructive varicty is, in my cx~ricnct. a more selecti'" proc.,. than th< reading of printed tats customuilr allow> No mat· ter where ~vu align your~f in the debate about how much th< tell! influences

I

166 /am~ Sosni.Hki

the read<r o\-er agaimt how much io th< teXI a sub1«t of the read<r\ im.tgin•· lion, nonethdess the text i> u<\Ully un<l<r><Ood 10 pro•-oke !he sekction of iu dtt.cls. In con>tructi\·e hYJ'<r·re•ding, the selectioo criteria employed ofteo i:o.-ern the readers internt before the rcxu = n= foW>d. Once these cntttia are •<-ti\'2ted, read<r< an r~J the rexu uncovered by rhrir search roult• in order to a,,m,ble rh<ir d~ih a. A~OTHER text which is, so to speU., re-authored bi· the reader. Th• ntr<m< in>tance of such reading i• a star<h engtne. This statement require; a commental)· before I can continut the argu­ment in which it is embtdded, so forgi\'C mt for digressing a bit ... I expect mv readers to obiecl to mv including a <Omputer program in mv dtscription ~( the process of readmg. So, let mt offer >0me reasons why I believe it 1s ne.:e;· sary to do so.

When I read an encydopeclia, I <tar<h through its contents for the informa . tion I wish to obtain. If I were teaching <omrone how to read an encydopedw, I ,,'Oufd sureh• acquaint th•m with '<arch te<l\niqurs and encourage them to attend to th• Wll)' the book is inde,td. \\'(re thev not familiar with the roman alphabet, I would in'it< them to !tam it >ine< it is a cogniti\-c map wh1Ch i. e""'ntial to reading an en~-doptdl.t. The deplo!'lmnt of th• alphabet a. a cog· nitive map is intrinsic to th• act of reading an encyclopedia. I mmtion thU trivial matter because manr of th< cognitive fnmo we use in reading •re so famili.Jr as to appear to be lri>-W: but situations wherein a reader is not acquainttd "ith thtm in•tantlr rt\'eal their non-tri<-ial function in aru of rtading. U )1>U admit that sorting framtwnrl... ltkt the alphabet are an aspe<l of th• cogniti\'C process wt call reading. then ruu "'"uld probably Stt the JUSlJce in saying that th• index of a book is a cruci.11 frame\\'Ork for reading JL Ont has onl)' to attempt to r<trie"e the informatton you belin-e }'QU have 1"'1rntd from a book without an mdex (and thC»< pre-indtxes we caU tables of contents) 10

realize ho-. significant key words .ire in proce<>ing the features of a t<xt. •• "0\111\ to return to mv argumtnt.

Conceptual framt'l•'Drks .are cru<ial to reading >cts because they allow for the stl<ction of relennt teXlual deuil._ An indexing program speeds up this characteristic reading activity by allowing readtr. to track the occurrence and rroccurrene< of key terms. It\ not that an indexing program does .omething that• person dab ~OT do: it m<rdy dots it &ster, mor< thoroughly. and more S)~lenutically. lt"s a machint that attndi our mtdltctual capacity in,..,,. par• allel to th• way ei-e gla>->a ext<nd our •ight." ·n,, glasses do not s<e, we Stt.

Th< index does not read, "-c rud. Ho-.·n-cr, in considering indaing as an ext<nsion of our reading a<t>, wt nttd to acknowltdg< that we borrow a te<h· niqu< of reading (processing a t<X1) from anothtr r<ader of similar t<Xl>-the person who \•TOie the indexing program who built into it the principlrs of ~lecti,ity by which ''" """"h th< teXI .. ftatures. When one thinks of surfing/r"'1ding the world-w1dt texl wt call th< Web, using Starch enginrs to do so i> indispensable. I belie"• we nctd to con>ider these programs as "ital com· pon<nts in the engine of our CAR.

H.ytn·ttiWns a'f.d thtir R£1Jdi,:g En''"" 167

Hoptng thn you •«<pt nw personili<ation oi th< rrograms lilt ZyinJ<x wh<n I docribe 1u<h programs as th< rtading technique> of a de<igntr. 111 now oder U.rm as tvidenu for the daim I was mu.ins-that corutru.:t•.,.• h'-per-ttadiDg (reader·dtreae.i. S<rcnl·bastd. rompater-~td reading) lw a big)J<r degr<< oi sd<>1ivlt)' tl\an the print bast<!. un-as.>uttd reading w< do ""'2Y from our tcnniruh. Thi> cl.iim can also be restattd in a more pb<-nomino· logical manner. ~uricrs ol the Web who read its texts by u.lng starch engin<> like Yahoo <dect from it> ,.,..,r1J-w1de $torehouse a '"l'T}' mod.,,t <imrl• of tex-is from tho>e available, albeit one< that are captured by th< vest.d inter<>!> of th< surfers. \\Ith re<p«t ti) filtering. the scale introduced into our con•ideration of reacting by instannng th< Wtb 1s inordinate. To keep U.c issue in p<r>(l<"<tiv<, ,,-c need to remind our>clvc> that «lectiviry corresponds to relevance and therefore to the"rtduction of uncenaint( upon which mearung dep<nd; (~mith 1115).

2.Skimming

This bnnss me to a corrtlati\e aspect of h)-per-readlng-lc~ of ti\• text is a<t\Ully read. Ill• proponion of read teXI to un-read but av.W.ble t<Xl is amo· oomi.:al. Sw1ing the Web i> "<kimmmg" on a global .al•. One might ht tempttd to think oi this as a probltm. In print en\ironrn<nb ther< ar< contnt. in which ,,.. tenJ to belin·• that one SHOULD read ALL of• metch of trxt ..

Some reader. (<.g., tea..:her>) worry about other read<" (e.g. student>) "·ho do not rtad all of the text. Con,-e=ly. some scholar. brag that they l\aw read ·a11• of Shake.ptare or ~hlt<>n <>r Jam<> Joyce. Obversely, per-.on~ <.0metirn<• rnn· fm that they read on!)· the beginning of th• book, or worse. only th• endmg. Yet skimmtng ban <>5<nllal reading act.

Th• following ane.:dot< sugge<ts the usefulne.s of skimming tn a print tn"· ronment. I recall bcmg jealous of a colleagu• whose questions at th< end of n·ery guest l<cture implied that he had read the l<cturer's mo>t rt(<llt books. I ne>-cr Sttmed to find the ume. Thtn I realized that he skimmtd U.em. By con· trast, I wa> ~ddltd with reader!~· guilt when I skimmtd a book; I idt that I had not re.td it. n·en thoui;h when I read the whol< book. after a ftw· months I only remembered it> bare outline>. I idt le<S guil~-. bowe>w. when I .... as working on an article and found hundreds of potmtially relevant ·~~°' in innum<rabl< journals and >li.immcd th<rn to find only the information reln"aDl lO th< issue I was c!Ucussing. \Ct, 10 this da>· I nave a compulsion to read n<f)· W1>rd of a pnnttd book I begm t<> read. Perhaps I enjoy the Web bca.UK I fed Its> guiltv surfing it for pankular topic• and reading only"at the slllfa.:<."

\\lien ... -c <onsid<r the popularity of b~-penexts. ~ing W..e> on a whole ntw· climension. H)-perte:m are dnigntd for skimmer>." If l"u were to skun a printed book. )1>U ""uld probably look first at its table of cont<nl>. then its ind<x and its b1bliosraph)" <1f1<rward read its introduction and it> <ondu~ion, and toward the end turn to an inter<sting chapter or pur>u< a cone<ptual thread or t""· H)'ptrtuts. lil-e proposals, are de>igntd so that •uch intelligent skimming is the nonn whi.:n helps readers who ha"e too mu<h 10 read.

168 ,.,,,,, s.,,.,.,,Jo,

Permil me to rnd thu 1eellon '""h ano:h<r digrnsion: I have alwan been .,tonhhed br the academic t•'" or •1<e<ping up wi1h one's field" ~ted with the ideal of adlic-·mg cxperti>e. One fn.d summer "'ilea I dtddcJ I -..'OUld no1 tcadt but cotch up on my r<adin~. I put togetha a modest rtading list oi books on lit<rary thtur)'· Anxious to kttp up a reading routme th.i would Insur< g<tting through th< lis1, I maJ< 1ht misuke of calculating the number or pages to b< read and the number of hours of a--ailabl• reading lim•. \\'htn I matched thest calcuhtions to a sen,ibl< readmg speed, I <li:.cov<red that I could barely g<t through half th• l"t and then onlr if I read at brt.tkntd speed on an unint<rrupted S<hedult.1 $hould ha\'e skimmed thtm but I didn't. Wh<n Fall arrh·ed all too soon, I went back to pecking as my customarv school year mode of reading.

3. Pecking

Though I can no longer remember when or by "-horn, sometime during mi· education I was taugh1 that 'kirnming ,..., bad but tha1 pecking was "''Or<e, on• a "mi.ii and the other a mortal sin on th< occasion of readiog. If t'Ou ilirnmed a l<xt. )'OU nussed its deta1b but folla..·<d ii> structure and at least caim •"'"Y "'~th a =st of how th• text coh<rtd, som<timts a more cogent sense of th< whole than rcad<cs who got lost ii> d<taiJ, could dtm~. Bui. if )'OU pecktd at a ttxt, rading randomly, sometima here, somtnmes there in no particular stquen.. ... then )'OU had no hope of di><mmng th< ten's cohertncc.

The cob~ of the text is usually rq;arded as a crural issue. For persons trained in formalism and for their •tudmt>. tens arc "organic unitie>.." Writ<rs ar< taught to stri, .. for cobett0<:e and readers elCpcc1 iL If a tmual dttail doe. not fit m to the ten's semantic network, writers remove it and readers find it a flaw. Good wnting is often distingui<hed from bad writing on the grounds or coherence. Readers rank ten. on the criteria of semantic harmon)'-

For most readers, incoherent texu are unintelligible. But, we might ask, "·ho e•tablishes what coheres with what! The author(s) or the rcader(sl? Obviouslr. not all text> need to be read in the same way. Reading reference works contrasts with reading th• singk·author<d, unified texts "nose cober· ence is deemed to b< the coru<:quen« of tbe in;ightful ordering of a writer'• intention. As the research CbarMy rC\i....-s confirms. the more th• intended stru<ture can be clisctmed. the greater the corrnpoodiog sc~ the text makn ( 23~). 8v comparison, th< order of esuy> in• ref<rence work correspond> to the conventions tha1 facilitate the retrinal of the information desired by the person .. ·ho consulted it. The cohcrenet of "the text" in corutructh·e hyper·reading-as in the USC or reference "''Orks-is more the re>ult of the reader than of the wnter. As a con\t<juence, pecking is an entirely suitable technique. In corutructl\·e hyper· reading the reader governs the radiog and imposes coherence b)· reassembling tutual fragment> as a newly created text that often displaces the intention the authors of the textual fragments incor· porated in it may ba"e bad.

HYf"t"'·tMders and rltc:r Rnlding F.f11inn 169

4. lmposing

For yttrs, rtading theorists argued \1'hernentli· about wb<ther the reader or the tl"Xl pbyed the greater rol< in d<temuning m"3lring. The most notorious moment in those dd>ot<"S WM the publication or Stanley Fish's essav, .\\no"s Afraid of \\\>Lfpng l..:r!" Fi>h, the primary adrncate of the po.ition 1hat the reader comtitut<d the tat challeng<d lser"s mo"' !Mlanced ";....·-th< text guides the rcad<r. H)'pcr· reading is not likely to ren<W thu dcb•te. In conmuc­ti'~ hvper-reading, there h no doubt that the reader is in chuge and that the telCI is sub>enient to the reader's \\ish. Such hvper· reader. impose their frame• works on the texl\ they peruse. Yt!, thlS is not the scandal it seemed to be when some reading theori>t> argutd that readers create the lit<rary texts they read. A simple analog)' show> why. Hyper-readers of the Web parallel r .. dcr< of ttle· phone books (as the Internet Yellow Pages CD RO\I ID\'it<• us to believe). Pages on the Web .u:c no1 bdd in the high esteem that pages of Shak<>~r< or Milton h.-·c been. Con>CquentJ\', to regard them as information i• qune com · mon and 10 most ,,.,... more than jtJ>tified. Just as td<phone books holJ little signiJicane< until they arc queried for a rclc->'alll addrt». so th• informal ion 1\-ailable on the Web hold1 littk >ignificance until a hyper-reader> search it for i1ems rdC\·ant to thnr inquiries. Granting that queries impost signifiunce on the pag<> of the Web, Jo they impose maning? Taking a som<"·hat moderate stane<, I woold argue that reader• do not create the meaning o( electronic lt'XU anv more Ihm they ((eate the ~aniog o( printed tens but tha1 thcy do male them significant. By framing ten., r.-aders assimilate thrm to th<ir int<r<>t> and hence render them si~nificant in the contm oi their concerns. The signif· icanct of thr ttx-t~ rn thl> )cn..,,e. is more important than its .. n1t.aining.•Thi5 can b< mo>t readily seen when h)-per-reader$ abandon reading book length e·texi. or articles from beginning to end and query them for data relevant to their reSEARCH. In thi1 "'Pt<t. we encount<r what t:mb<rto Eco refers to in Tht Role of the &<1dtr as "unlimittd stm1osis"(193ff). \fanv academic< will regard this» a 10:1;1 or me.ming rara!lel to seeing the film inst ... ad of re.iding the nowl.

5. Filming- • •• . but I saw the film"

In bis b1'tory of film, Kracauer comes dose to arguing that superior films ha\ .. lllOll imagn than ,.'Ords. In Ul>tanctS where films arc made from 00\'els or pt.a~._. pictures trandalt many of their words. The ratio of ima~< to word t.>,

of eoune, quite diffm11t Ill nm·els and films. A similar remark an b< made about ~'per· reading. In the consrruction of h>-per; m«ha)texts-rcgardl<S$ of their significance-iraphio oken plar a more mcaninsful role th•n word>. Hyper· reade"' turn the graphk> on web pages into \•irtual montage> u>ing rom·entions similar to dnematic ones (probably learned from countle» hour> of Mllching n· and film). And. as the Internet expands, graphial elrments will b< constructed with such hyper-readers in mind just as gooJ photographers compose their pictures with specific viewers in mind (see Bernhardl on "graphically rich" hypertexts, 168-170). As I mentioned abo"e, some per-on>

I

170 Jamn Sosnosli

will regard the tendency in hyper-reader> to prefer graphi<al to vtrb.il dcn1tnb when deriving meaning or signilic;an.e from ••cb r•11es .i.. a km of con«ptual depth. ~or is it surprising that persons we•n<d on literaturr >hould find tm< with fewer words than pictures IN lwly to conuin •..,rious" idea<. This. I belie--e, is a pmuclice.

Al this 1uncture. I should note that in the next three ""lions the a<:t of hyper-reading bea>mes almost 10di>tins1mhable from the IC1 of wri11ng. Con<trucri..-e hyper-r.aders are de-facto h)'per-writer> beuu.., thty tend to a,.:.emble the tmS they re<td 1lU> qualities, I ~Wpcd • .u tresr.wing tbe lk>und· aries w-e usually a.ssign to the categories "lneroture• (reading) and "<omposi· tion" (writing).

6.Tr~sing

From my childhood. I remember Hallow«n •• a night of trespas>-<>f wrongful entry into the lmds of another-bccau>< in the coal mining town where I grew up, trid; or trGlt<rs who w'ert not treated often went around to allei· behind the offending boU>t. entered the bad• yard and dump«! the garbage can O\·er, spilling the trash on the reu !l''"Se dri"ew,.ys. But prob.ihly the most familiar 10stance of trespa<s is burgLtrr-the felanr of br.-iling into and entering the house, office, etc., of another with the intent to >le.al. Hyper-readers are te~"lual burglars. Thei· break into electronic tots and ona the)' ha\-e found the source codes hidden from 'ig.ht, 'teal them awa)' wi1h their rut&pa<te tools and reassemble them !ma.nus the ;rrial numbers >0 to speak I in their own home page;. As Sire implie> in hi; chapter, h\'per-reader. arc ardent plagiarists. The situation is so bad among hyp<r-rcaders 1hat copyright lawyers ba\'e been called in to ad1uclicatc the boundaries of text>.

7. De-authorizing

Many •uthors belie-·e that tht)' own their texts, that texts <hould rightfully be coruidered their inteUectual property. For them. it probablv <cems sinful that constructive hyper-readers tend to dismiss such right> and regard texts as belonging to the public but h''Jl"r·readers sa.n C\"en more grit\·ouJy. By virtu· ally r<J.»embling texts. they dismiss the authors' a.ntcntions by replacing them ,.;th their own, thus de-authorizing texts altogether . . rru. rhcnomcnon can ~ seen on most wtbsites. E'-ery link to another rcrson's 1"11~ is an implicit a.:t of de-authorization." A!. hyper-readers read ~ lmked pagn, they cannot keep in their ma.nds who authored which page;. It .. ltk reading a Russian no"d wi1h a cast of thousands and not being able to rnn<:m~r which character b whi<h. It is difficult in hyper-reading to altnoote aathorwp to the l"gc$ being read. \\1ien h~'ptf·readers arm-., at wd»ite;. they often hJ,-e no :idea who mav hn~ authored the pages and in man)" ca.cs the p.ig<> h"'" no signatures and no impnnuturs.

lf >l)ie is the hallmarl. of thc writ<r's personality and a signature the kgal bond of identity, then hyper-reading undcr<ut> the pc""nal aspects of

Hypn·rttJ,/,·r~ nnd 1hc1r ~.ling ti1gina 171

authorship. Hypertext> are not g1,·c-n the >~mr iuthorlty a~ printed one3 becaust' tatual signature., b«oml" hluncJ in the unending \urge of inter·tex· tualil)· called the World Widc Wet> ,.he aut horil)' of a 1ext U>U.ill)' depends upon the certifica1ion of 1b ">ignatur<J" author>hlp. It is a;sumed that a par· ticular publisher <ertilies the authority of its aw hors on the h.ash of its stand­ing Hdentity) in th• reading(ommunity II -.C<'es. ("Th1' must be a good book as it ,,.., published by O•ford Una.-trnty Pr<S$.") AJ sdf·publi>hcn. in the world-wide nnity pre" known as the W<b. byper-readtr< publish innumer· able un·authorized inttrtexh B«ausc hyper-read.rs art invariantly h~-per-writers of on< l\l"' or mother, thei· <k·author th< !<XIS the)' read in the process of re-authoring them. The certification process i> bypassed pa~· bee•~ tht unprimatur «)ntroll<d ~- institutions of puhli<-ation can no longer easily be bestow·ed on the writer'~ "ignanirt. Wh.i is won.<, book< and ~-.are being tom to bib.

8. Fragmmting

l'or many ~'CM>, the format of a.:ademi< inquiry in the humanities has bttn the article. ~cw form; of academtc writmg are dearly emerging, and they are tied to hyper-reading. lfhypcr·readin~ were not a way to man•g< the informa­tion glut, then collaborati.-e h)-pcrtnts would not dominate the reading scene on the Web. Considering that HT.\1L or SGMI. cade can reproduce prmted t~m in formats ident1ul to printed es.ai·• and considering that it is easier to reproduce a printed ten in it> native format than to <Omert it to a h\'penext, one probably should conclude thal the labor-anttn'1vt effons of web· spinners to change printed texts into hypertnts ;, a respon~ to hyper-reading practice. and that the persons who read the Web preftr to read hyperttxts. In other words, hyper-reader>, especially construe1i.-e ones, m•)' prrfer fragmented texts to lengthy linear ones. But there is more to this i<Sue than meets the e)1'.

If the developers of Storysf>ace, Jay Bolter. Michael Joyce, John Smith, and '.\lark Bemstem, are correct in ~lae,·ing that "fragment> of text" or "notes" arranged by associati»e patterns corrnpond to the cogoiti'e structures read­ers habituaUy use (Joyce 31 ff.), then tht <onvtntional wa~ of <tru<turing essays are likely to gi,-. W-.)' to more cognit1\'tly rtSOnant way> of reading." In other word>. man)· h)l"'r-readeo mav be more oomfortablc >d«ting ltnual deuils and reas.embling them in their own virtual framew·orl> than using the frameworks impo.ed upon them. If we coo•id<r the structure ot an argument from the 'iewl"'int of ToulminU.n informal logic (Gi,-en .X, if Y, then Z), it appears to be a ...-ay of forcing a rrad<r IO link .•pecifk itrms of information as an inferential chain (data > "'•rrant > claim). We <,.D con,idcr such inference p'1tlerDS to be DlC(hani<m• of selection in th< .sen>< that th< data becomes rd­evant (is selected as nid<n«) in light of th< ...-arrant. In other w-ord>, w>.r· rants get the reader to sel..:t <:<rtain textual details .u rdes·ant to a thcsi;. From this point of 'iew. one might argue that 1he 1rad1tional mod<> of orga· nizing ~l"> are devi.:t> to get readtn to combine puti<ular textual details

17.:! James Sosno.sU

into memorable p•tterns (s<e Chorney, 242tt.). In this contut, essan are wnt·

tm to satisfy rnd•rs' cogn1ti'e >tructurtt and to make the ideas of their authors m<morable. It should not surpr..., us. then. if hyper-readers f...t Iib­<r•tcd from the constuints of .~u<h l<itual guid<linrs and f...t th.t they are now frtt to orgmiu textual fntUrt$ in patttrn.s rel~·ant to their o"""-n con· cenu "nether logical. topologi.:al, or a>wci•tn·e. Such t<XllW flexibility is valuable and hvpenens lend to pro,·ide 1t , H''J><r-readers, if thei· are of the con<rructive variety like me. tend 10 fragment the texts they read so thJt they can reassemble them '·irtuall)· ror aduall)·) in order to satisfy motn·rs ger· mane to their reading activities.

I hope you can discern in my a((ount of th<St eight traits of h)'per-reading specific ad\'antages for readers of •ll sort" Wh•n construed apocalyptia.11)' as "the end of reading as we know it," hyper-rrading mar appear likely 10 replace reading printed texts. I believe that a more sen•ible view sees hvper-reading. whether exploratory or con<tru<tivc, as another way of reading (and writing) whkh is not likdy to supplmt the one. w< alrndy have since they accomrli<h differtnt objecti\'eS-At thi; bistorkal juDau.re, w< nttd to remind our~h·rs of the gloomy for=lSIS of the end of the novd th.it came ,.,th the a<:h-ent of film. the end of radio with advent of td~1tton, the end of bookstor<S with the advmt of electronic texts. ~h I ~come the ad\'Ctll of hyper-.reading, I do see some rain douds on 11> horizon.

RAIS CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON

What I ..., as a likely r.un <loud is a <onflict over bow we theorize hyper-reading, In English department-. almo<t from the outset, work in eke· tronic environmtnts followed the fauh lines of the old division betwe<n "lit/comp" as contrasting list>el'V', forums, and elecrronic 1ournals began 10

spring up. One of the first m•jor listservs where pedagogy was disrussed wa.• Mtgab\'tt Unt\"ersil)', whi<h stood somewhat 1n contrast to another popul.u lmserv at thJt time, TechnoCultu.re, where postmodern literary theory w;.s

im'Oked. I beliC\T this pattern h>S contJnued. Two contrasting styles of theoriz­ing seem to dominate coruiderations of q·benp.ace-a contrast I ""uld n•IJIC! "p«lagogical" and "postmodern." I do not belin'< th.it the concerns th.it pro­'"~ such contrasting theorrti.:al Sl}ies are as )'<t ,.d] mt<grated. lbeorists liR Baudrillard are too specubt1>-c 10 ~wed as the basis of an <kctronic ~­and thus stand out as a "literary" interpr<tation of the World Wide \\~ as a "media" phenomenon. At the time I am wri11ng, the circumstance th.it po,,_ modern and pedagogical concern• ar< not well integrated in •iews of C)'ber· space as a "work emironment" ~ not a problem, but 1t could become one.

Were proponents of electronic environments to use speculative theo.rems to evalua1e hyper-reading practkn-for example, postmodern conceptions of cyberspace that can be derh·ed from the work of Baudrillard, I bdie"e that hrper-reading would appear 10 imply the d<"truction of scholarly reading

Hyf'"·rtotkrs a>UI thnr IWJmg f •gintJ 17)

practi<C>. S~,,J.11\'e theori<S about cyberspace and virtUaJll)' IU<h a• Baudnllard's tend to wggeu mon radical departures from our current norms th.n s<em. at ka>t 10 me, .. -arran1& If we dis..-u.sed hypcr-r..,.Jmg in IU<h term>. it would, I believe, ba"e consequences in our audem1c forums not unlike the coru<qucn'es dn:orutru.:ti\'e theorems ha'-c had .<ubsequent to iM I966 Hopkim srmro•ium-\Cholars quickly <fuided 1rutirution.lly inio orthodox and h<teruJox groups. Thi> led to the theory wars.-to my mind one of the least produ<ti,·• periods an the history of English d•partments. Gi,.en the comp/lit split in manr departments. 11 seems preilictable that, as hrper-reading be<omn a more significant feature of the work that goes on in English departments. cl3\hes over its value ,,;u surely force realignments (but, in the last anal)'>•S, brgdy renew old hostilities). I do not mean to suggest that literatu.re fa<ultin will on tht whole become proponents of p<»tmodern views such as Baudrillard's and composition facultirs will refuse <uch p<,.tmodem assumptions .. in<ompauble with their p«lagogie•. On the conmry; I beli~~ I mentioned in the beginning of this rssay-th.u ph<nomenon su.:h as h"pu-re•ding will be pcrcenTd bv anti·qbernauts as a loo of coher· ence, substmce, md depth. Postmodern speculations about cyberspa<e can ...Uy become rebuttal target• in arguments against pra.:tkcs su<h as hyper-reading br ad.-oc.it<> of textual coherence. unity, and :.tructurc. In this scenario, my gurs• is that the pedagogical theorizing about d«tronk etJ\iron· ments will. for th< mc»t p>n, be ignored and the battles will be fought.,,.., the potential Joss of "norms· that provide "discipline."

So. how should we theorize hy~r-reading?

COl'CLV510N

I do not believe we nttd a "THEORY" of h)'per«eading, even one that has a nice balance between speculation and pedagogy. This does not m .. n that we do not nred to theorize hyper-reading. Quite the contrary. A> G.W Hawishcr suggested to me in her comments on an earlier draft of this e<Wy • .,.., need a praxis for hi"J><r-reading. Relying on James Poner's lntcrncr.."Orud \\'ruing she ~TlteS:

I em ... ion •pruis" as bang soffiC"here t>en.-cen pra..'tice and theory-.au.illy • thought-ful form of pr><li<e. let - quote Porter her<. Ht writes. •Praxu is more thm a simple .adJ11Jon of or compromise ben--.ro thror}' and pra.:tKt; it reprnenu a new kind of critiul po>itJOning, It is a practitt. comdous of itself, th.i call> upon 'prudcn1iil rt.l><>ning' for the sake not only of production bu1 for 'right conduct" a' "·di. It "1nforrntd action, as well as politically and ethi­cally coruciou\ ~ltion thJt in i1s functioning overlaps practicaJ .tnd pruducth·c lmowltdge.•

Hyper-reading. as 1\-c charactenzed it, is an ongoing practice. To de•·dop a theof)' of hyper-reading-meaning an integrated set of concepts that dncnbe

114 /amo Sosnm.ib

it-sttnu to me to be a trap. It \o\i"'Quld commit the persons "'1th .K.adtm1c invatmenu in the subj«t to Jn tffort sunilar to the onie bolh comJ"C'~!tioru and hi<rary critic> b.1,·e .-k to ut1<ul.i1< •"paradigm" of writing or ttaJing. Pu•dignuric throne> no lon~er 11ttm vbblc. One of the difficulties sdiobn of reading and writing f~ in thdr ""'rl that surfaced as a result of the apl<»ioo of theories about the>< practia. b th.it no theory mierged as the "victor." Thi. l> inde«I quite perplcitlng. :\ur ~ there "'em to be any com-,,nient wa\' 10

<top the flood of available thrones units• one adopts the somewhat nihilisllc view of postmodern thinkers like B•udrillard. Yet alternam·es to such nihili>m can be sought.

There seems to be an emerging network of teachers and scholars who work in educational electronic emironmcnt~ They ha\'e been trained in both lttera• ture and composition programs and <hare \\ith each other an interest in the technologies of reading and writing as teach<rs. Thus, persons interested in hypet·reading (or the readinpwratmg proc~s for tlut maner) might find solace in pedagogical pruu. We could focu.s our energies on teaching others how to be hypcr-readtrs. Thi> can be Jone without recourse to a "gen<ral fidd theory" of hyper-reading sm.:c it only <X>mm1ts w to "thoughtfull)"" showin~ others how"" do "-hat .,.e do. The t~t of our teaching practicts would simply be whether our students could karn to h~·read in the wa~'S "" do but as a "po!Jticalfy and ethially coruciou. a,"tion." ~uch an mdea\'OT would ch.inge.., the technology ch.loges but th!. ii a ;ituation already &mili.or to any hyper-reader. Yet this uctic le•,«• a huge que<.tion open. Why hyper-read' The answer to this question is ued 10 another-what work are you doing? Doing one's work well, I believe, in,·ol•<• the praim Porter ad\'oc.ates but does not require a generaliud filed theory of an in,ututionaliud subiect matter.

I began this essay with an anecdote about a colleague who found reading from his computer scrttn to be a di"1grccable experience and preferred to read printed mat<rials. Though thu <>>ay has focused on what can be accomplished by the hyper-reading we alread)· do~ however rductantl)·), I do not beli"'" th.at the constructi\-,, hyper-reading cxpcri<n«s I ha'" d°'ribed .,.ilJ displ.ice r .. d . ing prinL ~or do I belit'\·c they will rcpi.l•e th< more structured reading., .• do of hypertut> designed to m.ih context specitic information a''ailable to lb. I am mcliMd to predict that the M>rt of enjoyment I experience in h>'P"r-read· ing will become common. The pl<a>11rc of readmg is often a»oci.>ted with•<> · thetic aperienccs-thc look and fttl of a w•U made book. the comfort of a fa,orit< chair, the crackle of a fire on a winter night as on< reads a nO\cL Such ae>th<tic dimmsioru ore not yet <A<ily •"ailable 10 computer assisted reading. Ho-.·e-·er, I notice some striking I though local l changes in the reading prac­tices of at least one of mv coUe•guc• that make me confident in my prediction. Fi\'c or six yea,,. ago, I sat in my favorite reJding chair in mr book lined study comfortably reading from my portable computer. My friends and family were amazed. This "'1nter I notice that my \\if< now often reads her own writing in bed while re'ising on her Thinkpad who"'* •wakening music" she "just loves."

fl )pt'T' 4 rG.A.l.rn and their Rmd1 "I Eng11tft l15

~OTES

i lh.ank Gail H.awuh<r for ''"""" tlus manusaip: in on c.rlirr Jraft. ll<r "'fS"• tiom ~"e kd to JUbsuntial i:rnpiG*itrutmU in tlu1> C'S.Pf•

I. A> Da•ldo 0..rncy ooc.. Ul " !M Elfo:t of H'fl'C'1m on PnxnMs o! Rnd:ng .nJ Wrt~" "Tbw far, lb< - common applicallon of hype 1 tat bas bcm for computer marnuh. m..-ydop<dias. or guid< books. providing rtad<n w\lh immcdia~(' accn.1 tu Jcrinition~ of by tmns. cross·rdcrmcn. tu•rhic iDu>tra · tiom.. C>r C(1nunmtjry htllU rrniou.s readers• f239J. ~ince )UCh ttxts hl\'t

alreadv pro,...i lllOSI suital>i< lll hyp<rtatu..l formatting. it «<m• lc~tly tlul L~cy

will abo I>< among lh< nr>I to m•d< .--..ilabk (w pock1 w.<d cumru•<r h->0Jc. whkh are "hll ln 1M cxpcnmtntal stage.

2. 1'io~t of the 11tudit' ChJ.rncr tt-Vie"WS feature such expo"itory h~-pcrtextt 12S2·2SS).

3. Cb~··s r('S(ill'h conirtm in •The Eff«t or H"Ypc'rtat on Pnxnw:i of Rrading ~nd \\"riting•u car1urcJ in one of her subntles: ~ Hyntat VoigntN r.ttate Approprl<'l< P•th• fur R.-adct,>" The roearch she ot<> h1ngt1 upon this pcmibil· 1()· .and thC' C'ffort u to di'.KO'lo·<r which cognitt...--c structurn att • .1prroprwc• to ;p<d5c motm.h .nJ idmnliable audiences. tM r...i.og apcriax< with .. iuch 11im ,,-JIKC'mo:! ·i.n dm eu.r ss orv in wh.idt ttaiden mt tM cognitl\c fr~ ·

works O< K!wma whkh they~ to the rtadi.ng apcn<n<r in pbc< of lh< ones rroridcd for lhnn .. ln su.:h rtadi.ng aper i<Dces, rnckn _,,w, .. bits of infor­mation il>lo lh< odicma whi<li ..,.ruins to th<tr °'"" worldvkw>. Eump1n o! such rc..i.n, woold bc: rtadi.ng W<'<d pro<CS$Ulg fib wl1h the ard c•l ..ardiing. u1daing, oudining. boolrnarling., and linking tools; radu!f a d.lt.llw< through boolean k'.ir(h t«h111'1ucs; bro..,_·,,::ng r.indomlythrough ~ b-,--pn1ntdia tm~ read­ing t"lf\:trooic nual or notr.: rndtng while n.ndomJ~· $urfing &ht' \\'orld \\<'idt \\'tb. In ea'-.h ('If thnc 1n~1.i1\cies., 'he rnder~s momn pro ... -i<k the " s.1ruc1ul't'• of the rc.ading act~ r~1h<r 1h1.n the wnler'$ or de~gner"s mo1J ... ~.

4. Th• text I ha>'< quo1cd "gltantd from Johnd.m Johmon-E1loli• welhit< lutur­mg .~·0Jt,dg1• A>1x<I> ch11p://tempesL<nglisb.purduc.cduiNA/na.html>. II •«nH •appropri.itll'• to m<-ntion tbal I w~ not able to obtain .1 printed .;opy of Nost.Jlgll A"gds from \'on's. th.. bdo'-cd Purdue book•t~rr. and h•d to have r<WUn.< to JolmJ .. n" wtbsil<.

5. Th< argwn<nt o( th" n.say (wt co0>tru<th-. hvi--reading an be .X..Cnbal m Iii< tttms bof<dJ lholdd b< und<ntood as a ~tioG. lhat is. .. a phmomi­..,&ogial dcs.."lip<ion of mvc:rr<rirna.~ ma m.wuxT tlu1 mites con· curr<D(<. In .tT ... ~. I 1111 ~ th< readen of thi> ""l' it my dncrirtion o! hJ'per-readmi nut<hes 1h<ir <Xp<rimce. If it don. thm our C00C1Jrm>« b«omn a ham tor th.. utiu:b1 ion of a problttna.tia of bypu-nadiag. .Stt "Configunng" In Toi:"' Profmic>rwls anJ .\fast<T ,Cnria and "Expl•lning. f!.,tjfying.. and Confit;unng" tn ,\foder.. Sltlnmu in~. CloKu.

6. In "!M ~•p< of Text on .Screen" [CCC H, 151 ), Stephen Bcrnlu.rdt 'U&l'"" l<n feature,. of textJ con .. truotd 10 be read online: sitwtion.&l.ly cmbtJJat. ~nterA­ti>-., foncl10naUy napp«I. modular. nmgable, hierarchically cmbcddtd, •P .. cious..graphic.tUy rich,cu5tomizabJc .. and publlihablt. Thoe fe1tUt\."11 COrmpond roughly to the »p«U uf hYJ'<r·rtading I ddineate. Although Bcrnhmh focu~ on the onlinc- text nLlhtt than the ruder, it i$ us.eful to note that hill dthnt".ation

I

176 ]amo So.sno.sl:i

Of h'"pcrtextua) feiturn r;aralJ<b my C'~ptrit:nlC' Ot h~·ptr-rc.idtng, t'Sp«U.JIV

sLDCe I did not mtploy hu atcgonn .u th<" N~u of my dticripton. i. <hnp-J•trmp«Lmgli•h purduc.cdu.•X.Vn.1.h1ml> 8. In lhe resc-udt th.u Ow-ney ,....,.,..., for oampk, 1hc ques1ion1 posed.,., .• ,...

ants of: "'Can rnJn5> rruk a.rrroprutc' idtct.iom vf .,·h.1t and~~ mach co u<ld! Can rcodcn crco1c •rpropri.I« SC\j.....:ts ol t<•hw motmal! If ttadtn ._,.. 11rublc 10 ""vi5''' • ~-patat dT«thdy, an hypmnt dnign<r·writ<rs ruson­ab~- .unkipal< readtts' ,·uious nttd> and cttal< •rr"'J'riat• poll" 10 ..tisfy lh•m?" (501. Al th< wm< hmr, w odm""1<Jgc. lhe lunlw;.,.,. of lh<w qll<rio when .he wrila: "I am akrpcial WI a h) pntnt clnignn-, nm under ideal cooditioos. an mtkipltc all lhe p.alhs tlw tt>d<n may wbh 10 cruft within and f><n.-..n IOU. As ... """S«D, I ,.;.s. 1'ng't of f.oaon intl~ lhe opproprUtmtsS of • ocqum« k>r • p..... r...dcr, in.;luding th< rcadtt'• prior knoo-icdg< of lhe dom.aiJI, lhe readtt's wk or purpose for reading. lhe rcadn's laming snit, and die rulutt n( lhe mfomuuoo ludf. 8cawc of U..huge num­ber o( !'O"ibk OJrnbinatioa. o( 5udi fao;to.'n. lhe urar o( -'tmu1i.-. pall» m.1. dc$ipr might =•tc b«omes 1 pr><tk•l rmp<..ubtlity and ~ sull rmuuu lhe problem of chtt<llng lhc right rcodcn ro th< right poths." (~511) :-;Olia lhe as.tumpoon that there""' "f1$ht" palhs. 1 Ilia ..,..,npti.>n pwrilq;n th< wnltt's motivu in cru.t:ing ~lat O\'t:f tht lt-'dtr'l moti'u for rtading &t btcallJlt it li the wtlttrs or cki.ign~ "·ho 6n.allv ckcid(' "'-hat rC".adtrs nctd to ub1i:n the meaning offered by them. Though th<w ... wnpt•<>n• .,. dh<ac:ious in ltudying reading for informaooo, lhey do not rorrcsrond "'11 to th< snn of rtading ~ir< describes, in "ili<.h tht- m.11cri.tl "chO\CD b«a~ n is tulh· <1\l<tilable and \Uit~ W moti'" of the reader which m.ay be t.unph· 10 be cntcru1in~. Charn~ ltnds to Stt designers of hyp<rt<XIS di.t .i1u .. for lh< lrtt rl•y of th< ITldttly imag1na tion as ·romantK."'Ytt, ·~noui' K.&dcr\ mar d.mn.ant1t 1c.tt1 org1n1.1cJ ti\ tlb11in specific anal'S o( information l"''hKh art thtttfo~ irran~ in stm.intic hitri.r· chics; for mot1'ts that belong onlr to them (whi<h do not corrnpond to the hit-1archics in$(Tibcd in the trxt ). In .. print '"''1ronnlcnt. ror t'XJimplc •• fouault scholar mar wish to rt.td tM tcxt't. ·n1arRin,," ln tither tnYironnlttU. <t

scholar may be inttres.ttd in .&r1fC'Ul.Jtion\ of .a p.arti,ular \.'Qn,cpt rcmu,~d from its conttxt!-. ln this Q.$if, the read"r <ould UK tht tntirc .;orru' ol a partkulJ.r "'·ritn- AS IF it "-"t:rt a di<tion.a.ry, th.al i"• a .wurct o( Jctinilioru.. In tu..:h ca.~. texts btcomt- infonn.ation in th<" rMiicill Knx-diKrclt biu of mc,.ning unrC'· l.ited to each othtr-"'·bich rtadtt~ R£.."'·ricc. th.at U.. tt•&$.Stft'lblt into M:hcma of lhrir 0"-0. This IYJ>' of rcad1ng-tar<hing for tM Ulk.UlallOO of a rutic:ular

cone<pt-4 f•ciliutcd by ~·~ ~inn •u<h .. """' mpna and di>tt­pids lhe tntu&I structw<s provicltJ by the writtt or dnign<r.

9. Cbamey writcs "\l>n!· c:ogrutw• il><ori<s USWDC that muJi ol the kMwkdgc in .long-l<rm m<mO<T i> org.utlud around tu<h hmrchial framn.-orks t rcfttttd to in ...nous thcoric>., sch._., lramts. or scripts) that aptun funililr pat· t<rns among dcm<nt>. Tbcr< nw)· bo s<h<mts (or cvmu, (or gnircs o! 1n1, for c:haroacristics of• sp<d6. foe the "'-rtt> in a S}WllL" Though som< ps)d>ol •

ogis<s. 5"" notts. "rtj<ct the schcrn.t as• cop>tiv« m•d.,nism. U..t as.•• a wai· to {orm.lizc or modd lb< w.n· in "ili<h <DCOUnl<nns. umiliu rroposillon rdi­ably ~ • pattern of rdll<d propositions. ,Xatha Kinb<h nor e>tlstt psydiol­ogis<s. ._..,.,.,will dUpu" the combttntlr ot...r-i l><hnm that ><b<ro<-s.,.,

11,.,...,.rtwJm arad thrir Rl\Wit1g l.ng1ntJ 177

mant to aptutt. Rq11rdlC'u of"' h.al .;ognitiw mt('h.a.ni,.m ls ultlrnatcly . ~lc-.:ted ·~ the' best formalism for the rhirnumitnon. tht (1,Jft(q"t o( .. \o(rir1 or schmu mn.iim a wcfu.I OOC'. (2"4).

10. Ourn<'! noles th.at m.any rrxa .. h.hn finJ that •it is euirr ro re-ad ("Omprdtcnd, .and n:mtmbtf a text if it f..t"•CHW'li ilfl infomUtt\T lilk htad.ings.. m'Cnicws.. and topic kntm..:rs lDttoduct.ng lty 'onccpu dw art rtpeattJ wd dnc:lbpcd in SU<·

C~T pcirlM.>lb of tat• f24 S).. 11. John<l,n J<>hmon-Wola rrminds m in S=.'gr< Ang<b 1lu1 boob ar< machinn

for trllllsmillins authority and t!ut t«hnology oftm ptt(omi• 1hc ...- social fun..-tloo.. In my cumpk, authority can be uazunojttcd mott S}~Y and tboro~ md lh< t<dinoJosy in th:s ClS< auy simply auromat< ••thoriutioo 10 ....p •hat art lwdlylib<mmg.

I~- r...... ol lat rmb<dding. na>ip!>i'.ity, hi<nrdty dis<uu<d bi· hypcnat th<Orin lih Stq>Mn B<mlurdl's •"'The .Slup< of Tat on 5attn"I ~ di.t lryr<r-r<ad<n sbn d«tronk tat.,

13. MyVl<W on this motl<t da>hts somcwlut wtlh lohndm Johruon·E.il<>b'., '"-ho citn up.ton, Bauclri!Lvd. anJ .Moulthrop to 1hc dT«t that "In thu •rru<flt •ub\'<nion of print, 1he tluid. <'!'<" JMlllrt of h) pm<sl (the annhvtcs that l«Dl

the rnm.t ~n opposition to prinl in1) ~y actuall~· bot """ mott 'onwrvative thm otMr mtdi.l. "hkh an not as f'nily wbtu1nc <-ril"tut- and rt1l:W.n(C', By panly DmllllS ih in•Jcquacin, ;rn idcolog}· ni.y be a~k to "tight<n rather m.n loo.en iu grip" wi1h a ,.ni«prcca1in~ honesty that •rrnn 10 adMwkJ;;• it< ~-n fl.a~ by ~liM\'lng a •bmittd drptt of 1rorii.: sdt · awarme\&• th.it can ma,l and/or sub\nt important struggln: I su•rt(t th.It ~n tht quntion of a(ad('lllic authorization~ the \\(b diminltha AuthorUl au1honty. On lh< \Vtb 11 u oftm impossiblt- to tell wh~ •work• is on tht ~ge ~uu att rtad1ng. At li:.i\t .u this moment. acackm1c wvrk on tht \\1C'b is not tnhri:-ly go\•trned by institutional pra-1;tkt'!... At the Cro~\ro.aJ.1 C" .. unftttn\.< in tht 1$umm« of lt/96, there \\'as con­siderable di\\.U~ion about the Khol.1.rly menh of any gi\'('n \\'Cb rt14.1un:t~ mak­ing it cltar that the '\t)ft o( •uthoriz11ion th.ai t:..ht11 fc."lr pubhcationi. in print en•.-ironmt-nb ~not trand.att ~J,il)· ti) clt,tronic an('s., lfntil (Opyright iMue~ ue stttkd, if 1h.n i:" "''t'r to bt; ~\iblc, tht' Juthc.1fi. authont)' w:IJ pn."'lbably not

be cnuttly cmlit•hk. 14. ThJs, YiC'<I\' h<ti bttn ch.allcn~td- Sore Ch.arnty, 2-IOff, Ho"""t'"~r. thtn! ,.tern~ to be

abund.mt ('\i:dcnct l°Ml hrprtr1C'Xt\ art gN\llll·ing in porul.arity i&nd ~(lpt-t".g .• tht in~rit.uiit m wcbs.Jtn th.II ;&rC' not dts.igntd by profes.,.ion.als. Thi) certainly suggau S(IM(: rorrd~tion bctWttn raJct''s ,,.g:n1ti"~ m.aknip and .a leu •1.ine1.r• linbgtb<IWttD IC\t.W <"Ompoo<nts. •hi<h is noe IO W)' m.1 structured ("apo>­Il<>r)'"l h•l"f'alS do J-;OT suit ow cugniti.-r mal«up. The q11<>tton thi• debit< r.WO. (or me Is •iltthC'r. tin« log1ca! for~ Jo noc lThllc;h tht cognim~ ..qucn.:es that""""'" 1hcm. my.....,;,.;. formalities «>rmponJ (m • pbc­oommologj.:.J sens< l to cogn1ti ... ..:tmiy.