Now that I have read so much about hypertexts, it was interesting to hear it from the point of view of someone who did not think it was the “next big thing.” Indeed, from our previous readings, I knew that Birkens would not be too pleased with new form of medium. His opinions on hypertext and the position it holds in the future of literature seemed to mirror my own; of the two, Hayles and Birkens, I agree overwhelmingly with Birkens, who is more inclined to what Hayles would consider the old-school style of writing and reading: words between the cover of books, and not on a computer screen.
What I prefer about books as opposed to hypertext is that you can physically hold the book in your hands; I like that the medium through on which the words are conveyed is tangible and concrete, even though the words themselves contain abstract meanings. With a computer screen, however, I feel like there is something between me and the writing; I feel almost disconnected from the story, like I am a passive observer as opposed to an active participant, like I feel when I read books. These feelings seemed to echo Birkens’s. A word printed on a page “occupies a position in space- on a page, in a book- and is verifiably there. The latter, [hypertexy] once dematerialized, digitalized back into storage, into memory, cannot be said to exist in quite the same way” (155). Also, because the presence of the writing feels more concrete, I am able to concentrate on it with more interest, whereas with the hypertext, I get easily distracted.
Birkens’s reaction to the format of hypertext was similar to mine also; I did not appreciate the non-linear format of hypertexts, as it was difficult to follow and, to use one of Shelley Jackson’s words, “schizophrenic.” Birkens’s describes that he “experienced constant interruption- the reading surface was fractured, rendered collagelike by the appearance of starred keywords and suddenly materialized boxes… I felt, rather, an assault upon what I had unreflectingly assumed to be my reader’s prerogatives” (162). I agree; Patchwork Girl did not feel like reading, so much as explorative research; I could grasp no clear concept of the story.
I thought it was interesting to read the two contrasting views of Hayles’s and Birkens’s experiences with hypertext; while Hayles loved it and thought it would revolutionize print, Birkens’s could not grasp the concept of it and expressed that it could never replace books- indeed, he sounded fearful that society would allow that to happen. I am still trying to decide what to type up this next paper on; I believe it will be the most difficult one for me, since I have not particularly enjoyed Patchwork Girl. However, perhaps I can compare and contrast Birkens’s view of hypertext with Jackson’s and Hayles’s.
