Summaresponse to Chapter 3 presentation

Observe
The presentation made use of good references from Bolter, citing useful snippets helping the audience wrap their head around questions like: What is hypertext? How is it different from books? What is hypertext’s function? Yet, the addition of futile demonstrations diluted the presentation’s effectiveness. Often, presenters would rephrase themselves to convey repeated topics while explaining differing concepts. As a metaphor for hypertext, this practice worked well. In terms of evoking a feeling of presentational progress, the technique fell short.

Infer
The presentation’s argument, and, in turn, Bolter’s argument, centers around the stark contrast between “text” and “hypertext,” claiming that the latter is an effective “remediation” of the former. The main points included: 1. Hypertext’s representation of “structures” can be more flexible on the computer screen, as opposed to speech or writing; 2. Despite hypertext’s reading difficulties, it presents itself as a formidable opponent to traditional print; 3. Hypertext can be placed in the space between written narrative and visual arguments: it may represent the human mind better than formal constructs; 4. Hypertext can inhibit or exhibit the “natural associations” that a traditional narrative almost always induces, for better rather than worse.

Question
What is so important about the concept: “hypertext is a process as much as a product”—i.e., what’s the big deal about “operating” the text as opposed to just reading it? Keeping the age of Bolter’s writing in mind, how has the difficulty in regards to reading electronic text declined, and what impact does the shrinking of that issue have on the “remediation” process? If hypertext is more akin to human thought, how might that change the linguistic habits of future cultures? How does it change current-day culture? Hyperlinks among hypertext: do they “[give] the illusion of control” (as Bolter says) or doe they actually hand over the control of the narrative to the reader (or “operator”)? Is there something “natural” about the traditional narrative process, or can any reader learn how to read hypertext? What difficulties does the “remediation” of traditional print into hypertext present to the English language and readers? How can this concept of hypertext ripple into young authors who choose to publish in physical format (read: antibooks)?