When I was in middle school, teaches taught cursive touted it as a necessity for writing in high school and college. Fearing that all would be lost if I did not exactly replicate each and every loop and curl, I practiced along with the other students and was surprised when upon reaching high school, not a single teacher asked for any assignment written in cursive. It was rare that teachers asked for a handwritten sheet at all; they took points off if it was not typed. The developed world is moving away from pen and paper, and even printed novels and newspapers are produced at a keyboard. The electronic age has transformed daily life, especially in regards to reading and writing. We have seemed to readily accept every new media forms with open arms, sometimes with a disregard for its proper use and implications; this phenomenon urges closer attention. New media writing spans many areas, combining audio, hyperlinks to outside sources, and perhaps video or visual elements as well. Obviously, new diversions can take away from writing, distracting the reader away from the ideas of the writer. However, this distraction is not always evident, and oftentimes, the medium adds weight and dimension to the message. Although the medium does not always (but indeed should) enhance the message, the options available to writers and readers through new media has been largely responsible for many worthwhile and compelling creative works that create a more interactive relationship between reader, writer, and text.
A term often associated with electronic media is choice: choice of the reader and of the writer. The reader has more of an active, participatory role in determining not only the interpretation of the text but also the direction the text will lead him. For example, “The Museum,” a hypertextual creation by Adam Kenney allows readers to choose which path they wish to pursue through the museum, mirroring an actual trip to such an institution and the highly subjective and individualized nature of such an experience (Kenney). Obviously, this case is one of many examples of hypertext stories that exist today, but they all give the reader more of a role to play in the reading experience. Choosing which links to follow ultimately determine what message a reader will obtain from the experience and relinquishing some control from the writer. Birkerts argues that placing emphasis on the reader as the paramount participant in the writing process is problematic. He describes his personal horror house which he refers to as a “‘hypertext hotel’” (Birkerts 160) forwarding the term of critic Robert Coover. He explains how both readers and writes can hack the words of the writer, creating new meaning and significance. In his words, technological media deals a “mighty blow to the long-static writer-reader relationship” (163). Birkerts, of course places writer before reader when he writes of the “writer-reader relationship.” The writer, to him, is dominant. The “point” of reading, states Birkerts is “to be subjected to the creative will of another” (163). This statement may be true of print media, and indeed it works well for this form; I often read to get lost in the imagination of another and get out of my own head. However, electronic media often have a different point that the author is trying to get across to his reader, perhaps a point that relies on engaged interaction and individual interpretation. Birkerts’s claim that the writer is always placed above the reader rests on the questionable assumption that the point of electronic media is always the same for print media. Returning to “The Museum,” one can see that the message of the author his enhanced by his medium. The choice of the reader is important in mirroring the engagement one has in a museum experience. In this way, the purpose of a blog or an electronic essay is often different than in novels or journals; they rely on choice and interactivity to derive their message. Although the role of the reader in the direction of what is read is evolving, it is not necessarily a negative change.
Likewise, the role of the writer is not always minimized with the introduction of choice. Birkerts attempts to convey that the power of the writer is being diminished. However, one can argue that this authority is merely changing, similar to that of the reader. The wide array of options now available to the writer – including audio, video, hypertexts, and animation – allow the writer to wear multiple hats. He is the writer, the designer, even the editor and the publisher of blogs and websites. Although Birkerts feels that electronic media create a “candy-store array of choices” (160), can one really state that this choice is definitively and undeniably damaging? The connotation of saying that one has the vast options available in a candy store is to say that there are many bright, flashy objects all vying for attention. A kid in a candy store will most likely eat himself into a coma. Obviously, some writers do take the approach, advocating that more is better and the message does not matter. However, these writers are simply not skilled in the medium. Choice, for a writer, can be a powerful tool when used correctly. The appropriate comparison would be a master craftsman who uses a hammer to build a house as opposed to a novice carpenter who uses it to nail his finger to the wall. Marshall McLuhan – author of the book The Medium is the Massage, which itself combines old and new media – argues for awareness of new media. He asserts that “all media work us over completely” and that mindfulness of how visual and textual pieces work together is important in the technological age (McLuhan 26). The choice of the writer is a greater control over how his thoughts and ideas further envelop and “work over” the reader. In addition to “The Museum” which was discussed in association with the writer’s choice, another multimedia writing project “Inanimate Alice,” makes evident the fact the with technology, a text can be enhanced through the writer’s imagination. “Inanimate Alice” follows a young girl’s inner thoughts as her mother takes her to find her father after he has been missing from their base camp for a few days (Pullinger). As a complimentary element to the text which tells the story, the piece also makes use of pictures and music. The medium in this case envelops the reader. When reading, one hears the electronic music that accompanies the girl’s games, and the mindset of the young girl truly comes alive. Through this visual and auditory technology, the writer was able to make the choice of more actively involving the reader in the story for the purpose of invoking some of the childish wonder and fright that this girl is experiencing. The writer, in a way, still retains his creative choice; sometimes this choice involves giving the reader greater control and immersion.
However, some critics, like Birkerts, disapprove of the scope of choice that new media allow the writer and the reader. Choice can be overwhelming to the human mind. If given the option, the mind often wanders and strays, unsure of which path to take. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Nicolas Carr asks if the depth and range that the internet allows is dividing our attention and expanding choice too far. Of the internet, Carr notes that “it injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed…the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration” (Carr). Carr certainly has a point. New media, especially those types that live on the World Wide Web, can be distracting. Sometimes hyperlinks propel the reader forward even before the current passage has been read. However, this type of reading happens with books one reads as well. If the story is uninteresting, one finds himself flipping through pages, looking forward towards the ending. Although surely, the internet divides a reader’s attention and makes concentration, all social ills cannot be placed on electronic media. Sometimes the uses of flashy stunts like the use of hyperlinks are simply gimmicks. Hyperlinks will not help make a dry piece more interesting, but it will make a reader feel more unfocused and thus gives the sense that his attention is being pulled in all directions. Honestly, one cannot take a stand that all electronic writing projects are revolutionary and worthwhile. Some truly are distracting and unexciting. However, one cannot view the whole of the genre by its weakest parts, and unsuccessful use of the medium is the fault of the writer, not of technology. Although this type of writing has been evolving steadily in past years, it has not yet reached the highest level of what it can be. Every medium has flaws and limitations. Print media can be criticized for being too stagnant and inflexible, but it is still useful. In the hands of someone who has a real grasp of the medium, it comes to life. When the medium and the message work together, distraction is not evident because the medium is the message. Electronic media are far from perfect, but it still has a lot to offer for people who understand how to use it.
Writing, as a verb, is expanding and so too must our understanding and use of various writing media. Writing and reading have always had many meanings. One can read a room or read an emotion on someone’s face. A fate is said to be written in the stars just as a novel is written on paper. Writing and reading, as evolving terms, can therefore be extended to new, evolving media. One can read the meaning of a visual image as clearly as it is written in the context of the essay. The practice of drawing meaning from these events expands the reader’s creative mind and brings more choice to both the roles of reader and writer. There will always be pieces of writing that are more successful than another, we as writers must only be mindful of the medium in which we are writing. We, as contemporary Frankensteins, stitching together life from old forms, must just be cautious of what we are sending out into the world, learning from the mistake of the modern-day Prometheus.
I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
~Alexandria Smythe
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.
Carr, Nicolas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Kenney, Adam. “The Museum.” Cyberartsweb. N.p., 4 Apr. 2004. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
MacLuhan, Marshall. The Medium Is the Message. Corte Madera: Gingko Pr., 2005. Print.
Pullinger, Kate. “Inanimate Alice, Episode 1: China.” Electronic Literature Collection. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.
Alex Smythe's Blog 