For the NMR reading of my choice, I read The End of Books on page 707.
The End of Books is an article written in The New York Times in 1992 by Robert Coover. He discusses the increased visibility of hypertext and then analyzes what other people say about the implications of more visibility. There are two things he discusses in the article that in my opinion are blog-worthy.
First, he says that some people think printed books will probably die out because of their environmental impact and ability to be read on a computer. In other words, a machine capable of recreating pages of a book on a screen with the capability to accommodate hypertext is much more efficient device than a book. Although he claim to not be an expert on hypertext, he disagrees with this assessment. In his defense of his view, he quotes Carolyn Guyer and Martha Petry.
They say ‘the difference between reading hyperfiction and reading traditional printed fiction may be the difference between sailing the islands and standing on the dock watching the sea. One is not necessarily better than the other.’
I really agree with this idea, especially when it comes to applying to new media art. One art form isn’t better than another. I believe that certain art forms will not die out even though they are outdated because of exactly what Petry and Guyer are referring to: new technology doesn’t have the same effect of art as it does on something like science.
The second noteworthy point in this article is the assessment that hypertext is the third great event in the history of literacy. This assessment at first seemed controversial, but the more I thought about it, it made sense. Hypertext is redefining how you consume information. Whether it be something relevant to this class, like art, or something like fiction, hypertext’s seemingly limitlessness possibilities are a major change in the society with implications as big as Gutenburg’s moveable type.
Link to the original article.
It’s the first link.
