In today’s digital age, it has been realized that hyper mediated literature contains hypertext information which provides information via a story which enables the reader to gain insight of information via text. In this manner the reader can choose to use or not to use the hypertext which will play a major role in what the reader will gain from the story. “The Museum” that is written by Adam Kenney (2004) gives a reader an exact understanding of hyper mediated literature that is filled with hypertext. In this hyper mediated literature, the reader is allowed to visit a virtual museum with each link leading to another page for exploration and other work or art followed by a story. Obtaining information in this manner can be difficult as well as challenging because one of the reasons for desiring to read is to have the opportunity to gather thoughts and to gain insight from what is being read. To present an argument relative to this thought, let us see what Birkerts and McLuhan have to say for the sake of argument.
Birkerts (1974) is not an advocate of text as he believes that words on screen have a different meaning and affect the reader in a different way. He also believes that there is an issue because of the texted not been fixed which hinders the reader from gaining a sound perspective of what is being read. I agree with this thought process. From a personal review of Kenney’s work, I found it difficult to organize thoughts and to stay abreast of what was being read. Any type of distraction did not help the reading process as the main parts of the story were confusing. It was also a process just keeping up with what had been read versus what had not been read. As an example, when reading the lobby, there was South Wing. The reading was not clear as there were a total of five or six different hyperlinks. Clicking on the first link led to another page with yet another link (hypertext). Finally, I realized that after clicking on link after link that, when reading in this manner a hyper textual story is similar to a tree that has a trunk and large branches that are connected to smaller branches. The key factor is that every branch needs the tree to survive, which is the idea that I held on to. This is true of a hypertext story as the hyperlinks, like the branches on a tree, do not support the story even though they exist. After clicking on the links for a while I realized that it would have been a lot easier to click on the hyperlinks on the side of each screen to take me to the next room, thereby allowing me to finish reading the map. This was a learning experience that I do not have the desire to repeat.
Birkerts (1994) also have another strong point in that not all hyper mediated literature allows an easy flow of information. One of the problems with hypertext is that it is difficult to absorb what is being read and even more difficult to understand. To me the argument is that hyper mediated literature does not allow for clear thinking in the same manner as printed literature. When reading printed literature, transitions are easier as the reader can keep up with what the writer has written with ease in understanding. As an example, when on the lobby page in Kenney’s “The Museum” there was writing on the page with a map to the left and a directory to the right. Clicking on the map revealed the different locations located on the Museum Map to include the North Wing (with bits of painted eggshell scattered on the floor like hard candy as a description), The East Wing (being a resemblance of white marble expanse with an antique suit of armor being propped in the room), The South Wing (having a soothing darkness of ceiling with glittering lights), The Lobby (having two well-dressed men being met by someone), The West Wing (with a complex statue of two figures), and the Atrium in the Middle (housing a beautiful garden)(Kenney, 2004). Clicking on the Museum Directory revealed other information that this reader did not find to be interesting. While I was able to gain this knowledge, I found myself being very disappointed as I did not follow a set pattern; I simply starting clicking. For those who have no problem leading themselves when reading a book, this probably was not a bad experience.
Another point of contention is that each room contained other hyperlinks which became confusing to the reader who can forget where he/she began. In a paper book there would not be the need to click and read, but to just read allowing the author to lead and you as the reader to follow. This process makes reading a book enjoyable.
McLuhan’s (2005) book titled “The Medium is the Massage” discusses the need to understand the changes in society to include the cultural and social without the knowledge of the mechanisms of media. One quote from the book stated that “All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, or unaltered. The medium is the message.” (26). McLuhan discusses technology from a human point of view to make it appear somewhat easy (McLuhan, 2005). This is somewhat different from Birketts as he discusses technology from the 20th century view based on the computing process. Each of these authors explains the technology differently and yet seem to agree on certain points. Brackets tries to show that there may be a way to look at things differently when moving toward technology using the same type of process for books. McLuhan sees technology as the new and everything else as the old. There are benefits from each point of view depending on the individual.
Another argument for paper over hypertext information is that there are literally no characters or people to become attached to which is usually the case when reading a paper book. The reader becomes wrapped up in clicking on the links to be taken from one place to the next which can cause a lack of interest to continue. Reading the book becomes a process or a means to an end. There is no character relative to the reading and definitely not a storyline to hold the reader’s interest.
Brickerts’ is also correct when he states that there is a different experience when a person reads a paper book because the reader can become involved in the story. There is also the ability to become emotionally attached when reading a paper book. All the reader needs to do is read without having to be concerned about clicking to move forward or backwards in the reading process. From the personal point of view I agree. Hypertexts can have flaws which would become a very serious issue if a report needed to be created, but the reader could not get the link to work to move forward in the book. Birkerts also seems sometimes to feel a passion for the lost art of the paper book. In his analysis, there seems to be a point where he views literature without consideration for the fact that people do have a positive part to play in the process and can make the decision relative to a paper book or the hypertext experience. Just as there is with everything, there is a positive and a negative side of the process.
Another interesting point of reference to McLuhan is that there is relevance to interacting when reading which is a strong point. New technologies have allowed interaction, especially when viewing simulations and playing video games. Another point of argument is that people like to read paper books and have become accomplished by doing so. With time those same people may find a way to enjoy the hyper world of reading books and enjoy the experience. McLuhan does believe in technology as well as its advancement and views computers as mediums that allow for a different way for people to see things and to interact with the things that they see. As previously stated, the key word is interaction thereby becoming a participant in the process allowing the gaining of new knowledge. After all, this is one of the benefits of technology that society is learning to deal with on a daily basis, whether the process is reading a book or learning a new skill.
Does this process work or fail as a literature? It does both, depending on who is using it. For those that are familiar with the manual way of doing things, they have the advantage of using both. For the millenniums, this literature works best because they have no knowledge of how things use to be. Do they represent a form of innovation for reading and writing or is it a mere distraction or worse, destruction of self and soul? The process does represent a form of innovation that can be used successfully; however, it is important to realize that too much of anything is not good – there has to be a balance. Birkerts and McLuhan inform us via a critical perspective of the importance of understanding balance relative to the digital library, allowing us to realize that there are positives and negatives to both processes. It is at this point that people must decide how they see the process and determine whether or not they feel the process works for them.
Personally, I am not ready to give up my paper book even though I have ebooks just like everyone else. “The Museum” is a different type of book that allows the reader to decide what to view. Birkerts and McLuhan each offer some good information for thought. As it is with most opinions, neither is right or wrong, but offer the reader a way to view technology and a way to read a book that would never be read if not for this specific assignment. It is good to know that as an individual there is freedom of choice which is definitely a good thing when making the decision of viewing hyper mediated literature or not viewing it.
Works cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Kenney, Adam. "The Museum." 8 Apr. 2004. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.
McLuhan, Marshall. The Medium is the Massage. Corte Madera: Ginkgo Press, 2006. Print.
