Notes and Quotes
Maria Goicoechea
(beginning on page 183)
http://hermeneia.net/eng/index.html
(184).
http://www.ucm.es/leethi (184).
http://www.ecuaderno.com/
(184).
In this article, the
author is attempting to provide an overview of current Spanish criticism
regarding the literariness of digital texts (185).
Spanish critics tend to
think that it is the social, economic, cultural, and literary history that
illuminates technical history, and not the other way around (185).
Can we discuss this in class?
Transposing postmodern
theory to the digital sphere is necessary but it does impose certain restraints
since there is the artificial imposition of measuring virtual texts with
structures of the past (186).
Not everybody agrees with
the idea that digital literature actually exists, either because it has not
reached a certain quality or because its identity as literature is put into
question (187).
Technosceptics and
technophiles disagree on what constitutes digital literature, which results in
much misinterpretation (187-188).
Some critics believe
digital literature is an art of its own which will not end up displacing
literature (188).
Common definitions of
hypertext are imprecise (190).
Vega believes that we
have not yet seen hyperliterature and what is currently being made are tests
and shy beginnings (190).
In the transfer of
concepts from one medium to the other, critics continuously confuse or fail to
distinguish between the act of text production and the act of reception (191).
In practice, it helps to
distinguish between two types of intertextual relations: those that are part of
the textual structure and those which the reader uses as reading strategies
(192).
The need for a reading
context in which to integrate the hypertextual information becomes redundant
since hypertext already is a self-sufficient and self-explanatory unity (194).
The knowledge of the
reader starts where the author ends (194).
Pajares compares the
reading process of a poem with that of a hypertext (195).
The structure of
hypertext admits a forgetful reader at the same time that places the reader in
a relation of dependence with the computer (196).
Interactivity is both a
property of the text and the reader (197).
Interaction that the
print medium allows is “metaphorical” because it is considered less “real” than
the interactivity that occurs in the digital medium (197).
Radical technosceptics
find it difficult to understand the ways in which the text also has the ability
to communicate. Holland argues that people falsely attribute actions to the
text that are actually performed by the reader (199).
The degree of
interactivity depends not only on the technology but also the reader’s ability
to use the technology (199).
The challenge digital
literature poses for critics and teachers regarding interactivity is that
digital texts also require an adjustment of the interactive strategies both
writers and readers are accustomed to share (200).
On-going Spanish research
focuses on the concept of intermediality as a key to read digital literature
beyond the hypertextual paradigm (201).
No comments:
Post a Comment