E-texts Week Ten
In this week?s readings there are numerous conclusions drawn across the articles regarding the importance of continued study in the area of textuality and materiality. Hayles captures the basis for these conclusions:
Through the feedback loops in which electronic text recycles print and the programs generating electronic text recycle code, we glimpse the complex dynamics by which intermediation connects print and electronic text, language and code, ?original? and translation, the specificities of particular instantiations and the endless novelty of recombination. (Hayles, 116)
Many of the article conclusions also make it apparent that this particular area of study is still in relative infancy and requires even more analysis and perhaps different considerations in terms of how texts are being defined.
Both articles by Hayles offer arguments surrounding print, the artifact, and materiality and the challenges faced in the long line of scholarship being devoted to the argument that print should be dissolved. Hayles arguments are strengthened in her detailed account of the differing points of view she is challenging; incorporating all of this information in her review assists in highlighting where she finds current weaknesses and what specific arguments she has considered and subsequently incorporated in to her own theories. For example, Hayles suggests ?Glazier makes an important point when he says that innovative literature tends to interrogate its materiality, an observation that returns us to our starting place with renewed urgency? (Hayles, 109).
Until reading Hayles, I had never considered that the ?Age of Print? was drawing to a close. Obviously we have discussed as a class the new medium of e-texts but I guess in those discussions I had never contemplated that print may actually become obsolete ? enough so that we could refer to it as an age of yesteryear. I imagine it will take hundreds of years before we would eliminate hard copy printing altogether and perhaps that is what causes the mental block for this consideration, but do you really believe that all of what we know of printed text would cease to be produced at some point in the future?
Moving from the future to the past, I?ll refer next to Nelson?s article from 1965. In my opinion, this article may be the most intriguing article we?ve read in this course simply due to the foresight Nelson had regarding the needs the general public (and businesses alike) would require, specifically the ?need to provide the capacity for intricate and idiosyncratic arrangements, total modifiability, undecided alternatives, and thorough internal documentation? (Nelson, 134). Despite the decades between our current technology status and how the machines are meeting our current needs and the time in which this article was published, it appears that Nelson had a firm grasp of just how complex our needs would be in relation to the structure of files. I think this astounds me because of the difficulty so typically involved with strategic development and planning in general for organizations. My firm can?t think ahead to what technology advances or simple data maintenance they may require in the next 5-10 years to implement proactive strategic planning. I chalk much of that up to the fear of change and their inability to fathom what direction our online communications and services to clients may take. They certainly would not have had the capacity as Nelson did to not only foresee the increased needs but to create a system that would adapt and grow with the needs as they occur. Why couldn?t I have someone like Nelson on my staff?
Along the same lines, Aarseth?s article emphasizes the need to adapt to the coming changes in our technology by revising our theoretical approaches, ?the figure of nonlinearity suggests that one must revise literary terminology and poetics in order to avoid further confusion and unnecessary ambiguity? (Aarseth, 779). He discusses how current literary theory doesn?t do the work needed to address the new forms of text and where continuing advancements will take the field. Like Hayles, Aarseth sees the importance of looking beyond one material artifact specifically and he ?was able to identify and categorize the most salient features of nonlinear texts rather then basing his conclusions on a group of homogeneously hypertextual works? (Aarseth, 761). It is obvious how important it is to ?broaden your bases? if you choose to add to the scholarly works within this area of new media studies. It?s cliché but it seems like the more you know about more then one type of medium, the better off you?ll be from the start.