Hypertext is power

As I have read some hypertext fiction (Unknown, The Jew’s Daughter)  and read about fiction hypertext, an idea sprung to mind – an idea that I am sure has been thought before – an idea which Nietzsche would address if he was still alive. That is, hypertext allows the reader power and control over the text.  Power is the main appeal of hypertext fiction.  The books from the 1980’s, “Choose your own adventure” books, are a fine example of this.  When the reader has control of the character’s actions and ultimate outcome of the story, the reader becomes a part of the story.  The reader becomes God much as a writer is God: by controlling a reality.  The power to control a microcosm is appealing. There is freedom is the power. It is active reading; it is fun.

Hyperlinks 3.0: nonfiction vs. fiction

 

As a writer who delights in the craft of both fiction and nonfiction, I find the future of literature, i.e. hyperlinked literature, to be fascinating.  I do not think there is any way to doubt: academic writing will become clearer and footnotes will become a part of the text in a more meaningful manner.  I see hyperlinked text as a way to make academic texts accessable to more people.  Hyperlinked scholarly texts will hopefully replace the present sad solution to the accessiblity problem,  namely,  dumbing down the English language of scholarly texts to match our culture’s declining intellect.   As G.P. Landow, author of Hypertext 3.0, points out repeatedly, research will become quicker and less stressful.  Such is an exciting prospect.

Landow mentions gains and losses (pgs. 29-34).  If the “gain” of hyperlinks is increased effeciency of academic texts, then what is the loss?  I would say fiction.  To preface this, I would like to state that I have never read hyperlinked fiction so my opinions may change when I actually experience the phenomena.  To me, writing: “The old woman held the knife.” (note the hyperlink), is quite different than: “The old woman stared with a puckered frown. She held the blade of the knife in her delicate fingers and lifted it with accusation. The knife’s handle and blade glimmered in the sunlight.”  It is a matter of description and imagination.  Hypertexting pictures into fiction can destroy an important creative aspect of fiction writing.   

Fleck :(

For my WEC class, I am supposed to read a seemingly highly sought after, academic book on the evolution of facts: Genesis and the development of scientific fact.  Since I love reading philosophies concerning the study of objectivity (arguments for and counter arguments), I was very much looking forward to digging into the text…

After several orders, several back orders (A used dealer on Amazon proceeded to tell me that “The book isn’t back ordered – I just don’t have it in yet.  I’ll send it out when I do.” Isn’t that a back order?), and several cancellations of orders, I officially do not have Fleck’s book.  I have tried looking everywhere  – including the dusty corners of cyberspace – and I read the first ten pages of Fleck’s book on Google Books, and an journal article on Fleck’s theories which unfortunately wasn’t too helpful.  Sonya’s blog was extremely helpful however, so now I at least understand the concepts presented in the book. 

Fleck’s observations about the social behavior of human beings is very interesting and true.  The way he compares such behavior to the medical field and inflection is a bold and fascinating move.  It seems to me that Fleck’s observations and the way he presents such observations are more profound and academically benefitial than Wenger’s observations.  Granted I only read the first ten pages of Fleck and I still hold a gruge against Wenger, but this is my impression.  

Open area problem solved

I figured out why I could not reach the open area.  It was a little bit of a usability problem.  Here are the tech toolbox directions which we were told to consult to access the Open Area network off campus

“Connecting to the Openarea

Connect to the Openarea on a Windows PC:

• Click “Start” from the Windows Start Menu
• Click “Run”
• Enter the following: \\150.250.64.231
• Click “OK” and login using using your Rowan Network username and password
• Double Click “Common”
• Double Click “Openarea”

The line that is italicized and bold is where the problem lies.   Maybe it was just my lack of deduction skills, my lack of internet saviness, or that I just missed reading it somewhere, but I was trying to find where to type  150.250.64.231 somewhere in the VPN window. I was literally typing it in every open blank because the directions do not say where to type the directory number.  The directions just say to type it.  I typed it as a URL out of desperation and it worked.

Thoughts on Wenger’s Communities of Practice

 

Wenger’s book concerns social interaction in the workplace and education.  The basic point are: social interaction plays a drastic role in creating our individual identity, social interaction helps us learn, we value social interaction, and community building is an inevitable trait of humankind. 

Abrasive aspects of the book were the lack of power, the lack of passion, the lack of logical argumentation, and the lack of scholarly references (although these references are mentioned in the notes section, I wanted her to refer to them explicitly in the text). Wenger claims from the beginning that the book is a “perspective” (pg. 9) and that book is “not a recipe” (pg. 9).   Such a claim does not only act as a scapecoat if anyone should argue with her perspective (McCluhan did the same thing), but it undercuts her theory – and, more importantly, as a reader I know I will not be proven anything by reading the book: I will merely be reading a person’s opinion. 

 The rest of the book is based on observations about human beings, constantly reinforcing the fact that humans are inevitably social.  Wenger only confronts the most glaring objection in passing.  The objection: McLuhan’s “the closer we become the more violent we are”, or Sartre’s “Hell is other people” (illustrated beautifully in No Exit).  The only instance she seems to retort the objection is on page 213; she says that our contestablity is a shared context. 

A good theorist proves their theory.  A good theorist also posits presumed objections and dismantles the presumed objections.  A wonderful example would be Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.  Ignoring the religiousity, one can celebrate the structure of his arguments and the systematic breakdown of objections.  Wenger is the polar opposite of such a method.  She doesn’t seems to be striving for Truth, she appears to be striving to write a book. 

Finally, I would like to see how Wenger  reacts to the philosophies of Karl Marx because I noticed some echoing of his theories. I may have to dig for that because she seems to supress a lot of what she truly wants to say.

My views on McLuhan

I am quite old school.  I am a Neo-Classicalist to many degrees.  Therefore my vision of the past is much brighter than when I look around the world today (the future appears even darker).  I do not embrace a bleak outlook for the sake of being a downer or a pessimist; rather, I embrace the outlook because I believe it is the truth – based on rational argumentation and observation. 

Therefore I do not agree with McLuhan’s technological optimism.  I do believe that a utopian world is potential in humankind: the quest for solidarity burns in each of us.    I understand McLuhan’s argument:  humankind becomes one though the medium.  The advancements of internet has most likely suprassed his expectations.    However, the “global electronic villiage” although appearing to bring us together as a species, is actually doing the opposite. 

As in…

1) We do not speak to each other face to face as much.  Younger people are asking each other on dates, bullying others, say things they normally wouldn’t say behind the safe wall of their computer and cell phone (text messaging).  This behavior overlooks truly socializing as human beings.   It is dissolving the human social fabric.   We are socializing more through technology; however, we are socializing in isolation: behind a computer.

2)  McLuhan says that technology makes us work harder, and that the twentyth century child works harder than any child in history (pg. 79).   I have to say today’s American children do not work half as much (intellectually or physically) as past generations.  Yes there is more information in their head – but the information is quality?  Today the stress is upon practical functional information, e.g. how to operate a DVD player, rather than lofty abstract theory, e.g. questioning what it means to be human, the rules of logic, etc.   Partly due to technology, people have stopped questioning large scheme information, and have accepted more trivial information.   

I understand that the economic conditions (capitialism is more cut-throat than ever these days) play a huge role in the entire techology situation, and McLuhan was writing when the individual’s quest for property was not as brutal as it is today.  So I think in the context of his time, McLuhan’s vision of the future made more sense. Presently, reflecting on his views we can see where we fell short of his bright vision of the future – and the responisibilty is all ours.

  

Discussion questions for McLuhan’s book: Understanding Me

 

Here are five discussion questions for McLuhan’s, Understanding me – Lectures and Interviews:

1.) What are the distinct advantages of the student as co-teacher theory according to McLuhan in Chapter One? Discuss some personal educational experiences (as teacher or as student) where the student as a co-teacher has been rewarding.  Discuss educational experiences where it has not been rewarding.  Is American education adopting McLuhan’s theory correctly as we push into the future?

2.) McLuhan refers to ”light through rather than light on” throughout the book, specifically in reference to television as a teaching vehicle.   What does McLuhan mean by this term?  Discuss television as an active learning tool.  How do you find yourself learning more through a television? How do you find yourself learning less through such a medium?

3.) How does McLuhan see the post mechanical age in relation to the mechanical age? How does the relatively new internet medium factor into these classifications? How might it create a new era classification?   (Chapter 2)

4.) The popular belief is that television is a passive medium.  Discuss the validity of McLuhan’s counterintuitive claim that television is a more active medium than reading.  Do you see differences in how the newer generation interacts with the television in comparison to the older generation? Provide examples.  How might this knowledge gap be related the internet?  Can this techological gap become closed? How so?

5.) Explain what McLuhan means by the terms cool and hot?  McLuhan speaks of these terms in the 1960’s and 1970’s and tells us that the realm of aesthetics is growing cooler. How has his prediction been proved correct? How is it been proved incorrect? Illustrate with examples of books, cinema, and music. (Chapter 4)

Yes, these questions have been revised.

Thesis sorrows

                             

I am writing a novella for my thesis for the Writing Arts M.A. The story is becoming very dear to me – it has become an extension of myself. After sitting at a computer for hours reworking a scene, sometimes professors disagree with aspects of the work (Should that scene go here? This dialogue needs to be summerized.  Why did you choose this character’s name?, etc.)  Sometimes they utter the dreaded words :  “I don’t think this part is necessary”.  The “part” is half of a chapter. Ten pages.  I love the scene.  Others (critical reader/writers included) have enjoyed the scene.  My thesis advisor didn’t seem to mind the scene.  

 I am now confused on what to do.  I am a perfectionist and the seemingly perfect chapter is now deemed well written but infectious to the narrative drive.

I value the particular professor’s advice; I cling to his knowledge like ambrosia given from the gods.  If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be in this situation.   I think I’m keeping the scene.  I’m just going to rework it.

My fictional writing style is somewhere between Dostoyevski and Leisure Books – that is, between rich symbolic literature and dialogue based dark fiction.  I am trying to marry the two styles.  Professors enjoy the symbolic literature style and outside readers enjoy the dialogue based style. So I guess I am going to piss off both parties and do both.                    

After the M.A.

Time and time again people ask me what occupational plans do I have after I graduate from Graduate school.  I tell them that I plan on being a technical writer.  For the most part, their reactions are all the same – more so an expression – an expression that says “your dream is to become a tech writer? are you kidding me?” 

I am a bit of a cynic.  I don’t see an occupation ever being the root of my happiness.  If I am being paid to fulfill a task, that means that the task itself is not pleasurable.  Therefore, since pleasure is always a byproduct of success, I will choose a job where I will be successful and pleasure will come naturally.  I believe tech writing will be that job. 

My dream is to be a writer on the side and have a tolerable job to make money.  Recently, I sold my first book review to a small horror webzine so things are looking good, but I obviously have far to go.  I realized that one has to climb the latter toward their dreams one rung at a time – and also prepare oneself for that rung to break – then as one ascends higher, the goals are more realistic and success is much sweeter.

Browser homepage settings

As I read Nielsen and Loranger address the topic of website homepages, I began to think about homepages in general.  I wondered what people use as their browser homepage (when you first click on Internet explorer or Firefox, what page comes up first?) .  Since I am an advocate of the Favorites bar on Internet Explorer, I have the home page set on blank so I can control my internet navigation through my Favorites without having to wait for a homepage to load.  I suppose some people use their homepage each time they go online, but I have a different agenda most times I go online.  Does anyone else have their homepage set on “blank“ to resist unnecessary homepage loading?