Your homework assignment for Monday asks that you read the article, "The End of Books," by Robert Coover and make a blog posting of 1-2 paragraphs with your response to the material. You can access the reading here, by clicking on the title above, or by going to the course documents page on Blackboard. Please post your material before class on Monday.
As for directions on the assignment: I am not looking for a formal response, but you want to make sure that your response is based in part on the text you read. So, it's definitely great to include your thoughts on a whole host of topics related to the questions Coover and/or David Foster Wallace raise, but make sure you refer some of them back to the reading. Please write me with any problems posting or completing the assignment. I look forward to reading your work and having an opportunity for you to share your thoughts with your classmates outside of class!
*****Just a note, too: I noticed that a lot of you were posting about the fact that hypertext literature hasn't become too popular since Coover wrote about it in the early 1990s. I wondered if future posters could also address the larger questions Coover brought up and that dovetail more with the rise of Kindle and the like, i.e. will books as physical artifacts in the traditional sense ever die?***
For the interested: Check out the following article about the Kindle by Nicholson Baker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/03/090803fa_fact_baker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Coover states his argument in "The End of Books" that hypertext and computers create a new form of fiction that is entirely nonlinear, editable by multiple author-readers, and is something that can never be translated back into print. Since the article was written in 1992, when hypertext was still fairly new and the Internet was not quite the world wide web, a lot has changed. He talks about computer and software issues he ran into teaching a class where software was no longer compatible with the operating system. Well, computing has come a long way since then. Hypertext has a few standard markup languages now and displays on all computers; problem solved. However, this technical problem didn't spawn a boom in hypertext fiction of the sorts Coover discusses. However, many of his predictions about noise, junk level, and navigation, proved true.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the idea of multiple author, nonlinear narratives on the Internet has not caught on. Perhaps I've just never heard of it, but if it's going to be a dramatic force in the world of literature, popularity is important. In the age where information travels instantly at zero cost, this type of work should be around. Instead, the Internet took a different path. The Internet has become a great information resource, and sites like Wikipedia sound an awful lot like what Coover is discussing: multiple authors editing the same work, with disputes, changes, and nonlinearity all included. But Wikipedia is, for the most part, a place for factual information. Maybe similar wikis for works of fiction are on their way, but until then, the print novel reigns supreme, and with popular eReaders like the Kindle and soon the Nook, the novel shall remain a mainstay in literature, whether it be on paper or in bits and bytes.
I agree with Corey that I have not, as yet, heard about a spreading popularity for these kinds of hypertexts. Coover’s article brings to mind the Internet sensation of fan fiction, where fans of an original text write their own work involving characters and settings from the work of fiction that the fan fiction writers all love in common. It is important to keep in mind that these spin-off fictions arise from an understanding and passion for an original printed fiction. These fans read novels and they create their own stories based off those novels, but it is the novel that, as Corey says, “reigns supreme.” The quality of many fan fictions is not up to par and many view this form of writing as a perversion of the original work of fiction. Coover claims that hypertext is characterized by “fluidity, contingency, indeterminacy, plurality, discontinuity” and that this form of writing is appealing to the audience, but I think it remains true that many people are satisfied and actually quite attached to the traditional continuous and coherent novel.
ReplyDeleteMany novels, of course, have tried to move away from the standard conventions. The post-modern novels we have read in this class have purposely strayed away from continuity, using multiple stories, extensive footnotes or images to relay their point, but all things considered these novels really haven’t forgone all the traditional conventions. Coover says “the novel's alleged power is embedded in the line, that compulsory author-directed movement from the beginning of a sentence to its period, from the top of the page to the bottom, from the first page to the last.” Writing in the medium of a novel, even a graphic novel, still controls the way the reader experiences the text. There is still the transition from one page to the next. We are not asked to skip between passages or to redirect our attention to any information which does not carry the story. Even in the case of Oscar Wao, the alternative story appearing in the footnotes was continuous and acted as a second story which provided enrichment for our understanding of the rest of the novel. Some degree of continuity is important to carry a work of fiction so that the fiction can be comprehensible. On a personal level I am not intrigued by Coover’s description of the hypertext. I think there is something to be said about reading a novel which you can hold in your hands and reading a text which appears on a computer screen. It’s like the difference between typing and writing by hand. When I read a novel that has been printed I feel like I can imagine the scenes and characters better than I can when I read a novel from the computer. The computer itself seems very detached and there is a disconnect between myself and what I am seeing on the screen that does not exist when I curl up under a blanket with a book.
Danielle M
The idea of seeing the novel as "coming to an end," as Coover puts it is a ridiculous notion. While one would be completely stupid to think that the introduction of computers and the internet haven't had an effect on our day to day lives, it hasn't turned us into artless droids, either. Just like the invention of impressionism changed art, computers and the internet have merely transformed how we view literature rather than killed it off.
ReplyDeleteFifty years from now, when we all might very well be part computer ourselves, the need for art is still going to be prevalent. The cavemen were known for drawing on cave walls to tell stories, and we still see that as art when compared to Degas or Van Gogh, so why is it irrelevant to compare Chaucer to a book that was printed only in cyberspace?
-N.R.
OKay, this could be completely wrong, but what the heck.
ReplyDeleteWhat I got from coover's "the end of books" article or what have you is the fear of the physical evidence of a book disappearing and the "hypertext" taking the place. Now when I think of hypertext i think of digital books, ya know the kind you hold in your palm and the words of a book are digitally produced for you to read after downloading a "book". This is the best way that I could read the assignment. I understand Coover's fear of the book becoming extinct, and after reading this I looked at the date that it was written. At that time , the World Wide Web was just taking place, and only limited things were put onto it.
I do believe that in the future, the physical matter of a book, will become extinct or a lost art. Now a-days, everyone is so concerned with the environment that it could become this way, only to save a tree.
I think that Coover's writing portrays the idealisation of something new being created, a new structure for artform. I would say that what he has envisioned has come to pass but not in the way that he envisioned. "Choose Your Own Adveture" texts were not developed en mass to tell a story but in certain instances the web has connected to other forms of expression that have allowed for further immersion into the art of story telling. I would say that what he is describing has taken place online through public relations and marketing. There might be less interlinking within a single story but take, for example, a movie such as the "Blair Witch Project." This movie when it came out used the internet as supplementary material that in essence linked to the grander narrative that was the movie. This was a type of hyper-narrative that is in essence what Coover is talking about, interlinking narratives. You gained a little insight into the movie online and then when you saw the final narrative form in the theatres you were drawn in deeper. The hypertexts online serve a supplementary material.
ReplyDeleteI think Coover's imagination was sparked by the possibilities of a new medium and I think he was interested in the possibilities of new narratives and new narrative forms and explorations that have not truly occurred. The great advances in hyper-texts have not occurred in linear narratives and I think that cross linking narratives as he is describing them may never happen in the manner he is espousing because I dont think our minds collectively get turned on by multiple options within a singular narrative. When you are telling a story orally you tend to tell the story from beginning to end, you dont ask your audience to make decisions which alter the story. You as the story teller tell the story; from this oral narrative comes the written narrative told one page at a time. Then online in the year 2009 we still see stories told from beginning to end. Hyper texts link texts as a form of advertisement of new material but I dont think people enjoy stories with multiple endings, its just not how we are built to interact with a narrative. For us to become immersed in a story it has to conform to the way we historically have been presented with the story. Academically something may be interesting but that doesnt mean it is better suited to tell a great story.
To start off, I would like to mention that before I read Coover’s essay I had no idea what I hypertext was. With this in mind, as of today will not be taking over printed novels anytime soon. As Corey pointed out in his previous post it is absurd to think that the hypertext will overthrow the written novel. One of the biggest misconceptions in Coover’s argument is thinking that the written novel and the hypertext are one in the same. This would be like comparing live music to studio records. Though a lot of fictional writers have perhaps moved on/into things like Storyspace, bookstores are obviously still intact. Hypertext provides people with the chance to write a little differently and with new boundaries (which is interesting, new, and fun), but the published novel is and will always be the complete work of a single individual. Novels are portable, tangible, and permanent this is everything that hypertext is not. Considering such, both forms of fictional writing may never die, but one will prevail over the other. Today that’s the novel.
ReplyDelete-Zachary
I agree with many of the previous posts- hypertext will not be taking over novels anytime soon. While reading the article, I actually had no idea what hypertext was. I had to google it and realized that it's something I use everyday- in almost every website I navigate (though I would not consider hypertext in the same arena as a novel). I do not agree that hypertext will take over novels. I think that a lot of his article had to deal with the fact that the hypertext and other such internet-related items were brand new; who knew what the future would hold? Yet since 1992 it is apparent that the hypertext has not taken over the novel.
ReplyDeleteI feel that hypertext in a novel may get annoying: having to click on another word to understand something, taking me away from the original page, would just become tiresome. I like being able to go from page to page in a novel, taking in the story as the author intended. Overall I understand Coover's article due to the brand new time frame of the hypertext, though I think it can be said now that hypertext and novel are not of the same genre
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt has proven untrue that hypertext is the end of the novel. It has taken a different path than what Coover predicted 17 years ago, Wikipedia is indeed, as others have suggested, a prime example of hypertext in the real world. Coover was essentially taking a stab in the dark about what the future may hold, and he was wrong. But that is not to say he holds no credibility, who could have really known?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest threat to the novel (at least as something you can hold in your hand) is the Kindle. It, much like the mp3 to music, could change things in a big way. But music has not gone away, and neither will the novel. In order for the Kindle, and copy cats that will inevitably follow, to be successful someone still has to do the writing. There will always be those who want to hold the book in their hands, and put it back on the shelf when they're done as part of their prized private library. CDs have not gone the way of VHS tapes, they have merely evolved, the same way books may.I begrudgingly admit that writers like Stephanie Meyer (the author of that Twilight shit) will save books, if nothing else does. Probably the medium to be most victimized by hypertext is the newspaper, its fate is questionable at best.
The problems Coover mentions with software, and the like, is no more. It has been in fact advantageous for many college students to use hypertext (though I think the term hypertext itself is a bit dated). I took Advanced Composition last year in which we did, as the name Advanced Composition might imply, a lot of writing. We posted much of what we wrote on BlackBoard to be read, and edited by fellow students, as well as the professor. It was very helpful, and to my knowledge, no one experienced any problems. A respectable stab in the dark it was, but in the 1970s many also thought we'd be driving around in hovercrafts by the 2000s. Not yet.
Cliff Spurlock
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is so interesting and brings a lot of good points into the light. I have often times found myself thinking about how books in print are probably not going to be around anymore in the years ahead. The invention of the printing press is one of the most profound and world-changing moments of history; with its invention, everything changed! It is crazy to think that something could once again come along and change the world in such a dramatic way again. However, I think we have seen that with the internet and computers and the technology just continues to build and expand so who knows what they're going to come up with next!
ReplyDeleteI had not heard much about these "hypertexts" before this article, but in all honesty, I think they sound interesting and I could see them catching on, especially as time continues to go on but not necessarily with novels. Granted this article was written in 1992, 17 years ago; SO much has changed in those years. But it's very cool to see Coover's insight and where he thought novels would indeed go in the future.
I think today we can say that these hypertexts have not taken over the novel because they are not really the same when it comes down to it. I also believe that novels in general will be very hard to replace. People like to read basic novels way too much. We don't necessarily want to pick what happens or have it designed in a specific way or receive 25 people's input or suggestions, at least not all the time. Sometimes it's nice to just sit down and read a book. There is comfort in that. A comfort I do not believe that hypertext has been or ever will be able to give. Sure it's fun, new, and extremely inventive but there is such a strong dynamic to the novel also and I don't think that power should be underminded at all, not even by technology.
Overall, I found the article very interesting and it definitely opens your eyes to see what is going on in our world and how much it really is changing.
It's interesting to read this essay, which was written in 1992, and see how technology was already making an impact on the writen word. I thought that the fear of 'books going extinct' was a fairly recent thought, something that must have sprung up around the new millenium, and no earlier. it's interesting to see that this fear is much older than I thought. This transition to hypertext may just be a picking up momentum, with the all the text readers like the kindle coming out. I don't think these devices are that amazing, and don't seem to be that popular. I don't think that the books will ever go 'extinct.' These new advances may just add to creative process.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by the description of the online workshops. Students not only sharing their writing with each other but editing each others work and creaing stories together sounds not only helpful, but like a lot of fun. These advances in technology help student get instant feedback on their work, something not so easily gotten otherwise. Technology seems to be opening writing up to a whyole new world of possibilities, ways to improve and diversify it. It won't kill the book, it's something else entirely.
Corey J. Bennett (Corey no. 1):
ReplyDeleteReading the David Foster Wallace essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction," I was enlighted to the give and take between fiction and television, more specifically with post-modernity and notions of counter-culture and rebellion.
Television's very essence and content are based on the people that watch it. That said, it is in the best interest of Television to pull in whatever it can to appeal to the largest audience possible.
Wallace likens the hypocrisy and irony of Television, and its absorbing and basturdizing of post modern priciples (absurdity, meta-narratives, etc) to what happens generally in Third-World rebellions: "[v]ictorious rebels…seem best at using their tough cynical rebel skills to avoid being rebelled against themselves -- in other words they just become better tyrants" (67).
cue the emphasis on the theme of tyranny please.
Without stretching this analogy too far, I will say that Television, whether on purpose or not, is at odds with the novel. Drop the intention implied with rebellion, and focus on the the shifting of readership/viewership as a lasting war. Television, by nature (at this point) can adapt to an ever-growing culture. Shows are cancelled, pilots are aired. Television's ability to bounce back, culturally speaking, is boundless. The Novel is at a disadvantage, not for its lack of flexibility in content (there are billions and billions of books) but because Television is the one of the easiest sources of information to access. You don't have to think, or even move while watching tv; it's with a certain passivity in accessing the content that Television gains its support. Television as a culture shaper, whether when considering consumerism, or moral and cultural norms, the way we perceive ourselves and the world around, is shaped by television.
The same can be said for the novel, however more people watch tv than read, it's undeniable, and with that it seems that people would watch television before reading a book. It's like the marking of territory, the shot of the flag waving on the moon. Since television comes first, it shapes the way we approach fiction, novels. It can tell us what to buy, or even what to like, and that in turn generally dictates what people read. The most purchased book is launched into the public eye, the news, magazines, the internet, branching out into the public eye. Being number one is a big deal with a novel, with its potential film adaptations, sequels, and fame. There is also a group mentality that stems from television, stems from any available good for consumption. No one wants to be left out…
-----------
CJB - cont.d
ReplyDeleteI want to cut this short here and start the Coover talk.
This calls back to the idea of culture shaping, the novel and television both.
(I might add here that television and the novel not only shape culture, but are also shaped by culture, however I assumed above that it is a widely known thing.)
Hypertext as written about by the seventy-year-old Robert Coover in his essay "The End of Books," is described as the namesake for the essay. It's application in creating a "Hypertext Hotel" at Brown University, seems dated. I remember the many choose your own adventure books in my childhood, and text based adventure games on the computer with the pixelated green text. These are long gone, but Coover's definition of the hypertext as something that isn't limited by the "tyranny of the line" [underdeveloped motif in this post], stretches beyond the faded genre, and the now obsolete technology of my childhood.
When I think hypertext at its most obvious, I think Wikipedia. Here you have an article, say on Diarrhea, and within it you can click on say twenty percent of the words within, all taking you to related subjects, whether that's part of a country that suffers the most deaths by diarrhea, or even to the article about Pepto-Bismol.
The popularity of Wikipedia spells out what our brains are like: hypertext is akin to thought patterns, the sporadic nature of the imagination. Post-modernism sometimes centers around chaos, sometimes with consumer culture, loss of the significance of the individual. Hypertext in the novel doesn't involving the clicking of the mouse, but inclusions of say foot notes, as in the Diaz book we read earlier this quarter. With footnotes, Diaz was able to tell two stories at once, the history of a family, and the land they came from (horrible summation, I know).
I hope I got somewhere on this; blog entries aren't necessarily insincere, but certainly not as laid out as essays. With most dense topics I tend to wander around a bit, not out of disinterest or insecurity, but maybe as a product of information technologies.
George Herbert's text came to mind when I read Coover's article. This is the hyperlink - http://www.thingsrevealed.net/altar1.htm (my blog skills are weak so you need to copy and paste this to your browser).
ReplyDeleteIf my deficiencies as an "avant-garde computer hacker" left you to waste, here is a short summary - Herbert designs a poem titled "The Alter" in the shape of an alter. In some ways, this could be considered a first form of hypertext. The shape of the poem creates a hyper image in your mind's eye (no need to click a button).
Diaz uses his footnotes as an integration of hypertext in the novel format. The interruption and sidetracked flow of the reading is like getting shoulder deep in an intense blog session on Wiki. The competing narratives lead the reader to incongruous places within the fictional tale, if chosen. The reader has the option to follow the footnotes or just breeze-bye the links embedded in the story.
It is hard for me to believe that the novel will ever die. I believe it to be gaining strength in the 21st century because of its voice in Hollywood - _No Country For Old Men_, _The Road_, and again, and again, and in a book we will be reading "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men_.... follow the semi-link = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URCMDgdKMWk
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that we are at the end of books per se. Coover predicted that hypertext would be the end of books but I feel that over time, hypertext could operate as new medium for books and the like. Hypertext offers unlimited opportunities because it allows many authors to contribute information as a collective whole. On the other hand, hypertext can never truly operate with the simplicity of a book.
ReplyDeleteI feel like hypertext has changed the novel in term of its linearity. Novels in a conventional sense seem to be fairly linear but the introduction of hypertext, according to Coover, has removed traditional structure. This lack of structure gives the reader the ability to interpret the information in any way they choose. Overall, books will probably never come to end but I think hypertext could be integrated with novels in many unique ways. I searched for a hypertext novel on Google and found http://www.ryman-novel.com/info/why.htm, which is a neat hypertext novel.
Honestly, I don't think the novel will ever die out. I mean, as a form it's been around for a pretty long time and it will take a lot of effort to kill something like that off. The Illuminati could get on it. I think this idea of hypertext was one of those things that everyone thought was going to be revolutionary, but then it turned out it was just too much effort to do anything with. Maybe someday it will be resurrected, but overall I highly doubt anything will ever do away with actual books. It's hard to describe the feeling that I get personally when I come across a really old book, or a favorite book. I love having a mantel full of them. I think it wouldn't be nearly as cool to have a mantel full of "floppy disks." Also, there's something incredibbly accessible about being able to carry around a small book. You don't have to worry about compatibility issues, or battery life. Even as computers get smaller I think books will still be everything they are now and always have been.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with most people...
ReplyDeleteIt seems inevitable that the days of paper novels are numbered. Modern electronic reading devices, such as the famous Kindle, use electronic paper technology, which is extremely easy on the eyes compared to traditional monitors, as well as using a fraction of the energy. As battery life technology improves, the life of these devices will become simply endless, especially with photo-voltaic cells like the ones on calculators. And if you ask me, if I have to decide between bringing several paper books on a trip or a single electronic device, I'll probably pick the electronic version.
And I don't believe the hypertext idea has really died out at all. First, there's Wikipedia, which I know I've spend countless hours on, following link to link to create a sort of 'narrative' on certain topics. And as someone mentioned, the text-based computer games in my opinion served as a direct link between hypertext and modern video game narratives; some, like MMORPG's, are virtually endless narratives that millions enjoy. Others, like SecondLife, offer another self-creating narrative. And still others offer an interactive, novel-like experience of a story that the player directly experiences.
Although these games presently lack the depth and insight of novels, I believe they have already developed into a much over-looked literary device.
So, in closing, novels will probably always be around, although it seems to be turning to an electronic forum. But as technology progresses, new literary devices will pose a huge threat to novel's popularity, as many will choose a more interactive approach.
After reading Coover it is funny to think he wrote this so long ago and was really worried about the novel dying because of the introduction of technology but it didn't and still hasn't. Today we are more worried about things in print dying like the newspaper, which is. I don't think the novel will ever die. Most people love to read books. They like something they can physically hold on to and read. I personally find it harder to read things like articles or even books online. I also think that the novel won't die because like Tim says above, Hollywood seems to be bringing out its voice. So many people are taking novels and turning them into movies whether they are blockbusters or not it shows how much novels have impacted our lives. I think the novel is something very important to many people and something that we will never get rid of. I think he is right in saying hyperspace has changed things but I don't think it changed things to the point where people will forget the novel all together. Hyperspace has opened our eyes up to a whole new world where things are easier and different; easier to connect to people, easier to research or look up things and easier to put ourselves out there. These are two different worlds and although hyperspace is always changing and improving the novel will not. It is interesting to think each world has its own style of writing and how each affects the world. The vast world of technology is continuously on the lookout for ways to improve itself but I don't think these constant changes or improvements will bury the novel or make people forget about it. - Molly Bauer
ReplyDeleteUnlike many of the other “bloggers,” I fear that hypertext, and technology in general, will bring about the end of the novel. Not the actual novel or the process of writing the novel, but the impact on society as we have traditionally seen. Great literary works will continue to be written, but they will be stashed among the already antiquated literary masterpieces of the past. Technology has changed society in an irreparable way and will continue to do so for generations to come. Library usage has decreased to such an extent that several of the most established, including the Cincinnati Public Libraries and Louisville Public Libraries, are struggling to even remain in existence. I once had the “privilege” to work at the public library and I can tell you from first-hand experience that over 70% of the trafficked materials were multimedia resources, namely DVDs and CDs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not believe that the novel in itself will ever become extinct, its ability to impact culture and society will. In many instances already, students revert to the internet to find information on the novel (sparknotes and the likes) instead of actually reading the novel, greatly diminishing its effects on the reader. American culture is becoming more and more fast-paced, leaving little time for the American public to sit and read a 300-page novel. As time becomes more and more essential, the novel fades from the forefront of literary influence. Even the novel itself has changed as many mainstream writers write books at an assembly-line pace, hoping to one day have their work converted into multimedia format (movies). Novels are becoming less directed towards changing and critiquing society and more directed towards embracing society’s wants and desires. Eventually, books will all be available online and hence will be made shorter and more aesthetically pleasing to the internet and hypertext readers. As literary work becomes more directed towards television adaptation, the intrinsic value of the writing will decrease, causing the death of the novel. The social commentary role of the novel has been turned over to documentaries including “Super Size Me” and “Columbine.” The novel no longer has a role in mainstream social critique as it will reach only a small portion of the community.
Coover's article, from start to finish, had me slightly confused as to what hypertext actually was/is. Given the date of his publication, I had to ask myself, "wait, did his predictions come true? Have I been sucked into such a world? What's going on??"
ReplyDeleteAdvancements in 'puter technology have undoubtably had a strong effect on nearly every aspect of daily lives. Nevertheless, I hardly think such advancements have made (or will make) printed text an obsolite form of communication. In large, I believe the narrowness of certain practices, such as communication, is essential for them to be effective.
Okay, here's a shot at avoiding complete ambiguity on this subject:
Facebook, in theory, is an extremely convenient form of communication with friends and family. Cheers to never actually having to "talk" to anybody!
Yes, nearly everyone I know (myself included) has a Facebook account to which he/she remains more committed and intimate with than most of his/her friends. Notifications are amusing. Personal messages are nothing short of exciting. For this reason, it's safe to say that, just as email began to trump traditional letter-writing, f-book has largely replaced personal emails. BUT, Facebook (or anything else, for that matter) will never be enough to keep people from going out of their way to spend more intimate time with eachother. Perhaps we need real-life face time (you can't make out via f-book...yet), or perhaps the internet is too vast a space for any one relationship to grow. Maybe both. We have to confine our relationships in order for them to be prosperous and rewarding.
Likewise, I find the internet too vast a space for large amounts of information to be communicated effectively. The confined nature of printed text also allows an author the time to get their point across to the audience. Say I was reading a "hyperspace" version of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, and, instead of footnotes, there were constant links to various other history websites, etc. Would I end up returning to the original page to pick up where I left off, after following said links? Very unlikely. It takes patience to fully listen to what an author has to say. Patience via the internet is almost an oxy-moron. "DAMN IT! AIM HAS THUS FAR TAKEN 1.3 MINUTES TO LOAD! WHAT THE F---"
Ideas and storylines found in literature cannot be compacted as easily as, say, a popular band can be. An author's insight cannot be turned into a 30 second, 99 cent ringtone, or an iTunes single. Nor will television or film adaptions, in my opinion, be able to completely snuff out printed text. I was raised with TV. My father read books. I watched Pinky and The Brain. It's even worse with those younger than myself, but with the right story line, kids will always be reading the next Twilight Saga or Harry Potter series. Christian moms will always be reading the next Left Behind series. I'll always be reading, uh, the next The Dew Breaker.
The Coover reading was interesting because I too have not noticed the "Hypertext" becoming too popular. As for the question of wether the novel will die out as an artifact in the physical sense, I would have to say no. I think reading is all about preference. Some people would might rather read electronic books, while some people might also prefer an audio book. There are just more options now.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that I don't think we are at the end of the physical novel, I do think all these new technologies do change the way it's constructed. Wallace's point about the watching of television to help shape what the writer puts in their fiction is one thing that I find interesting. When a writer uses a television show as a basis for understanding people in everyday life, they are basing their observations on another writers perspective. It's not so different with how writers might base their writings without television. A lot of writing is about imitation, even if it's imitating someone else's perspective.
In other ways, technology has changed how we view the world. This kind of world view is definitly reflected in contemporary fiction. While we change, I think the fiction that we write will change, but I think books will be around for a long time, simply because reading books is something people like to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in both E Unibus Plurum by David Foster Wallace and The End of Books by Robert Coover, they argue that the advancement of technology can be a double edged sword. In the Wallace piece, he says that television has evolved for many Americans beyond the average of 6 hours a day of consumption. Wallace says that television can be a gauge of popular culture, that many Americans spend a majority of their time watching more than six hours, and “We spend enough time watching, pretty soon, we start watching ourselves watching.” (34) He says that popular culture feeds on popular culture. In some ways, writers are forced to write, in low form or paid arts, for what an audience feels is comfortable. So, writers are not given flexibility in what they want to write. Although Coover was writing in a time that the internet was first taking hold of contemporary life, he was predicting that hypertext would change fiction as we know it. He says that for many students, it becomes difficult to write outside of their comfort zone, because when, “confronted with hyperspace, they have no choice: all the comforting structures have been erased. It's improvise or go home.” On the one hand, the internet has caused the way fiction is read, where text is no longer read by flipping a page, but clicking a series of links. They both make similar and dueling arguments. They both are commenting on the dependency of evolving technology.
ReplyDeleteParticularly in the Coover piece, he makes the point,”…how do you move around in infinity without getting lost?” Unlike the novel, the internet is infinite in the fact that there are so many other distractions and possibilities that people can click. When he describes this, I picture a news story. There is the original text, although often in print form first, and sidebars and links that are not found competing with nor supplementing the original text. In way, in Coover’s ahead-of-his-time piece, it also sounds like a choose your own adventure tale. (Coover mentions this as a way that fiction can compete with the emerging technology.) When you are reading you are on one path and then you decide to take a detour, often disregarding what you have read before. He questions, how are you supposed to write when there isn’t a clear beginning or end? What do you do, when there is no line? Wallace makes a similar argument when it comes to writing with and against reality in television writing. On the one hand, you are confined by the norm and on the other you create a pseudo reality. There is a certain adaptability in both works that requires a writer to embrace the evolving technology. For Wallace, it is embracing and writing against the norm. For Coover, it means that a writer cannot ignore the internet. The internet creates jargon and way of living that has become an ingrained part of our culture that we cannot ignore.
-Sarah F.
LIke many others have already commented, I do not think books are dying. Yes, with all of the advances in technology over the past decade, printed books and novels have become less popular, especially to our generation. Such technology like the internet and computers, have made research easier to access, instead of having to physically go to a library, look up the serial number of a book, check it out, then read it. In my opinion, using technology is much easier and a more efficent way of doing research. It is sad to say, but personally I do not like having to go to the library to do research. I find it more convienent to search the internet for information. So in this aspect, i think books are becoming less important.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think novels will die out. I do not think novelists will lose their jobs. Authors are still recognized for their work, and if they are lucky, their books could be turned into movies; a medium described as a reason why books are dying (ha ironic). I do not think on-line sources and technology will trump printed books. I think that they can collaborate toegther and can feed off of each other's pruposes.
-stephanie m
FROM ROBERT KELLER:
ReplyDeleteI would like to start off by saying that based off of everyone else’s posts, the general consensus is that Coover’s fears that hypertext will result in the death of the novel is irrelevant, and I agree. I liked the reference that someone made saying that comparing hypertext to the written novel is like comparing live music to studio recordings. You are right; they are definitely not the same thing. Therefore, I whole heartedly disagree with Coover. However, I can see where he was coming from based on the fact that he wrote his article in 1992 when internet technologies were just emerging, thanks to Al Gore. To me, it is a lot like how people freak out and think that the world is going to end because that’s what afore named person said would happen in a movie. What I’m getting at is that Coover’s worries are on par with the fact that whenever there is indication that something is changing, people always assume the worst.
I would also like to say that I am surprised that no one really mentioned that what we are doing in this post is essentially taking part in hypertext literature. Look at all the posts, including mine: People are giving their own input while borrowing others’ ideas and modifying them, introducing new information and examples, and adding things which could completely set the discussion in a new direction. For example, I included the “bash” of Gore because I’m sure that it has caused some of you to say, “How dare you say something mean about Al!?” then probably want to say something bashing my conservative ideals. The point is that, like Coover said, writing in hypertext enables the discussion to go completely awry, which, to me, is perfectly fine.
To wrap things up, the main reason why I disagree with Coover’s concerns is that I think that hypertext actually expands people’s means to get information. A perfect example could be like when something breaks on your car. Are you going to read through manuals hoping to come across something that might help before you take it to the shop and pay for a diagnosis, or are you going to get on a blog where you can post the symptoms and have someone tell you what went wrong?
From Ashley Tolle:
ReplyDeleteCoover's ideas that the introduction of hypertext is going to lead to the end of books is interesting. Throughout our short lives technology has been constantly changing and progressing forward. However, the idea that technology will wash out print books completely I find as being a little far-fetched. This is because I feel as though people enjoy having a book in their hands, whereas if reading on a computer it takes a lot of the sentimentality behind reading away. This is why 'books on tape' hasn't really caught on either.
However, I do find it to be a fascinating idea and an interesting mode of fiction. The partnership between author and reader increases dramatically, and the affects that this creates would be interesting. However, since this article was written in 1992 and it is now 2009 I doubt that hypertext will ever become a mainstream technology.
OK, well, this is my second attempt to post this! Any way, I feel like Robert Coover's "fear" of hypertext or novels in general to so called take over is insane! The internet is so uncontrolled easily hackable, most authors (in my opinion) would not even think about putting their novels online because they want to make money off their work. Like music, you can access them online (or iTunes) and on cd form. Books will be like this beyond our time, so the eminent threat of the end of books is not realistic. I am a journalism major and newspapers and magazines are going through that threat now! Books have lasted throughout history and they will continue to do so. I just don't think Coover is realistic in his fear because finding full books online is near impossible unless you pay. It's the same for newspapers and magazines. Because of this, authors will probably not want their material online because they want to make profits off of their work, and the only legit way to do that is in print because you can not "steal" this tangible material like you can on the internet. The new phase of media does impact novels and the writer, but I don't think that it is enough to diminish the published paper books. Plus, in my opinion, hypertext is way to confusing to follow! It's like a powerpoint tripping on acid! I think I'll stick to my paper books and magazines for now.
ReplyDelete-Megan
For some reason the idea of Hypertext makes me angry. The idea of literature one day becoming a non-linear and infinitely boundless form strikes me as ironic, because I believe there already exists forms that Hypertext was/is attempting to create. If I get Hypertext correctly, it could be a website like Wikipedia. You type in Bob Dylan, and the first page one comes across is his life, influences, favorite color, favorite poets, etc. Say then, you click on Rimbaud, and cyberspace takes you to the exact same original format: the voyeur then learns about Rimbaud. You can click on numerous underlined links: homosexuality, French poetry, etc. So you start with Bob Dylan and end up with Verlaine. This goes on, and on, and on. At first thought, this reminds me of Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past or Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake. It has already been done. Maybe even Wallace’s Infinite Jest, though I haven’t read it. Plenty of novels are non-linear right? Where the reader learns the end of the novel in the beginning. Also, in other novels, there are sequels, or in others, like DeLillo’s Mao II, there is the life of a past author written fictionally into another novel. Literature as a whole, can inter-connect this way, non-linearly, starting from Shakespeare and Chaucer, and even the Bible. I believe the concept of “the novel” is already infinite and boundless, if you interpret it that way.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed several references to the hypertext as either confusing or annoying and when taken in a literary context I agree whole-heartedly. However, for someone who reads and writes a seemingly endless volume of technical papers, manuscripts and manuals, hypertext is not just a new gadget it's a way of life. No scientific paper today is written without references to definitions, terminology and cited documments, in the form of hypertext. This format allows authors and scientist to concentrate on the presentation of their work without having to drown the reader in volume of data and references. Hypertext allows specific data and references to be extra-somatic; the selection of references is voluntary and designed for to assist in understanding without taking away form the topic at hand.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is 180 degrees from where the literary purist resides. Literature should flow without unnecessary interruptions, unless of course you are Diaz and choose to use alternative narratives to enlighten and entertain. I think that good literature should reference itself by providing a clear narrative that supports itself from within. No outside references are needed to support a good story.
Michael Philips