This is a transcript of a Webchat conversation among students of English 5334, HyperTheory/HyperLiterature (Prof. Len Hatfield), at Virginia Tech, and Professor Stuart Moulthrop, University of Baltimore, on Tuesday, April 18, 1995. Contents have been edited slightly to improve readability.

<1...Len> Folks: I'm delighted to welcome to our webchat Professor Stuart M. Moulthrop, who has generously agreed to join us in a virtual conversation about digital culture, hypertext, and several of his essays which are now available on the WWW. As you know from our readings, Prof. Moulthrop has published widely in the field in forms at once critical and creative.
To get the ball rolling, I wonder if Stuart could expand on what he sees as some of the consequences of transferring not bodies but representations to the network ("Getting over the Edge")?

<2...ChrisCouples> Dr. Moulthrop, One of the things we've been discussing in our class is the degree to which hypertexts should be 'open' or editable/reconfigurable to the reader/writer. What is your position on this?

<3...jan> The gaps or relevant break-down points seem to be places where the readers is moving from one set of information to another. Building on Lanham's notion of looking AT a text rather than THROUGH it, I wonder if we will always see these links as a gap? I don't think about turning a page in a book as a gap, and unless I'm really paying attention, I don't even see chapters in a print book as gaps, just convienent stopping places. The gap, though, is the way that the reader orders the information from one text to another or one. If we could shape the way that the reader percieves these gaps, how would we do it. (Potentially, I think that we can and will because some of us will be teaching in this forum.

<4...Stuart> On the Net, no bodies -- well, yes and no, as folks like A.R. Stone and N. Katherine Hayles point out. This technology is supposed to erase gender, class, and other power-markings -- though the demographics of the Internet are so far overwhelmingly white-male-upper-middle-class. What are we trying to represent?

<5...anonymous> Prof Moulthrop--In "Getting over the Edge", you describe hypertext as something created within an electronic environment and also that which cannot be translated into print media. This intrigues me, b/c I view (and I believe I've been encouraged to do so) much of the codex book reading I've done for this class as hypertextual. I'm curious as to how you would view/ categorize a book such as Pavic's _Dictionary of the Khazars_? (one of the codex books I'm referring to) Are you familiar with it?

<6...Amy > Sorry--I forgot to write in my name! (I'm "anonymous"...)

<7...Petersen> Professor Moulthrop, in "Getting Over the Edge," you make the following assertion: "Hypertexts cannot be translated into print. They retain a dynamic or "interactive" component which no non-electronic reduction can adequately represent." With this in mind, I was wondering if you've read Pavic's _Dictionary of the Khazars_, a text which is contained in a codex book but which also is one of the best examples of a hypertext that I've ever read. Why does this text fail to live up to the dynamic aspect of hypertext, in your opinion? While I agree that most hypertexts are best represented in the digital realm, I think that DoK is a notable exception. What do you think?

<8...Anna Carter> To create in the technological environment one must first encounter a breakdown of some sort -- as compared with -- John Paul Sarte's definition of a genuis, "A human who is able to invent out of desperate situations." If the author in the technological environment has been threaten i.e. has somehow gone through a transition which has caused him to become "sullied," does this mean there exist new possibilities for this author in terms of both the deperate situation he is in and his ablitiy to create? "Is the author like Hamlet when he (Hamlet) says "O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into due ..." in a life/ death situation where s/he (the author) can choose between extinction or or creativity?

<9...kim> I read through "Getting Over the Edge" and took notes of confusion points as I went along, so that's what I'm sending. My first question has to do with the idea that print rhetoric is "stubbornly present" (i.e. undesirable) in the electronic realm: Is this rhetoric stubbornly present because it doesn't adequately address the new (and definitely there, present) dynamism of electronic and web structures, or is it stubbornly present in the sense of perhaps impeding this dynamism? Is it just a misnomer, or does it have potentially more dangerous consequences? Or, both?

<10...heather sims> The point you made in your article "Getting Over the Edge" about how we center our writing around a home page on the web as a way of trying to stick to the old ways of doing things, at the authorial level anyway, was one that I hadn't thought of. So do you feel that we need to completely break away from past notions of how things work in print culture when we embark upon electronic writing?

<11...J. Dietz> It seems to me that there must be a much more "attractive" quality of hypertext. I think that most people like the definite, closed finality of finishing a book. They like the feel of, and physical contact of an interesting book. There does not seem to be a sense of mastery in electronic writing, even if it is but a false sense that linear texts provide. Hypertext already has the problem of being new and unfamiliar. After people get over the fears, there must be a way of making in more attractive.

<12...Stuart> Chris -- I'm disgustingly middle-of-the-road about "openness." While I abhor a monologue, I also don't see much point in calling something "a fiction" if it's really a role-playing game (and role-playing games can be fun).

<13...Len> Stuart: yes, I'm always suspicious of these hyper-erasures; how do you see the culture's subcodings affecting our attempted representations?

<14...Amy > Oh...you mean we're allowed to respond to each other? OK!

<15...Stuart> Chris -- I'm disgustingly middle-of-the-road about "openness." While I abhor a monologue, I also don't see much point in calling something "a fiction" if it's really a role-playing game (and role-playing games can be fun).

<16...jason booth> In "Shadow of a Infomand" you state, "The informand is not created for independent operation. It does not exist outside the context of its use." Could you elaborate on what you mean by context? Do you envision context as that period of time in which the infomand is being actively engaged by the reader? If the reader stops to add to the collective conversation, then is the context of the infomand being suspended?

<17...John Priestley> Amy/ & Marc--I'll come valiantly to the defense of the claim that hypertext cannot be realized in print--at least in the sense that _DofK_ et al. are based more on the Enlightenment-era structure of the Encyclopedia. Referring to them as hypertextual is really metaphorical and perhaps even anachronistic.

<18...Stuart> Amy & Petersen -- _Khazars_ is one of the hard cases. I'd certainly agree that it's hypertext, which undercuts my claim that HT can't be done in print. I think what I meant was that electronic hypertexts don't fare well when reduced to print. I've tried this a few times. The results are ugly.

<19...Hyoejin> Professor Moulthrop, when I was reading your essay, "Getting Over the Edge" you compare the information highway to the concrete highways in how it has reshaped the organization of our culture. This idea resonated with Foucault's discussion of the panopticon and his extrapolation into a general description of a disciplined society.the Post-managerial class in some ways becomes like the police in Foucault's esay. Particularly in this light, with the mention you made of the government's planned partnership with information industries I wonder how this will function in our culture in terms of power/knowledge relation, which Foucault suggests drives the formation, maintenance and distribution of knowledge.

<20...Anna Carter> Marc and Amy, How do you guys view the codex book as relating to the hypertext environment?

<21...jan> Kim, I've been thinking about the same kinds of issues, the traces of the print culture on electronic culture. I think that the print culture makes us aware and makes us (as readers) want a central author who is both knowledeable and accountable for the work. This notion of the author discourages revision or addition to the text. For my work, I'm hesitant to circulate it if it is subject to this revision that I don't approve. Some projects and the home-page forum are similarly discouraging because no one has immediate access to our work for the purposes of changing it. However, we can change the context of other work with links and comments from OUR homepages. It's difficult for me to definitively say what is good or bad about this system (another constraint) because it is difficult to imagine an environment in which I am not influcenced in this way.

<22...Petersen> Kim: I think that the reason print rhetoric is "stubbornly present" (I love that phrase) lies in many people's inability to adapt to or take full advantage of a new medium (in this case the digital medium). I find this happening in myself, and I know that I have more experience with this type of writing (if only because of our ever-lovin' hyperlit class) than many people. I think most of us are still trying to get our feet (and other appendages) wet before we make a full-fledged jump into the depths of the electronic world

<23...Len> Joe: given that many people find hypertext pretty 'attractive' already, how wld you account for this? Your comment seems to suggest that mastery is everyone's choice and main interest in reading. . .is that what you meant?

<24...Stuart> Jason --I thhink that's a fair reading; what I meant was that an informand is defined in and as action.

<25...heather sims> I don't see how we can erase gender, class, etc when we are talking about and dealing with technology. Such things as the web and internet automatically exclude certain people by their very nature in the same way that early books written in Latin used to exclude some and subscribe to the few. In order to make books more open to the common person they were written in the vernacular language of the people, but I wonder how we will be able to make such things as the web and hypertext more accessible?

<26...Robert Brown> This is my question to Dr. Moulthrop. What is the current feeling in academic circles towards publishing on the world wide web? Do people recognize a scholarly validity in the environment? What would someone with hiring authority say to such a publishing credit? Do you find it conflictual to try and win people over to the idea of hypertext without showing them how it works in actuality?

<27...Stuart> Hyoejin -- Yes I think we need to think through hypermedia and all "new" technologies from a Foucauldian perspective. There's a young theorist named Johndan Johnson-Eilola who's been doing that at some length. He has good things to say.

<28...kim> Dr. Moulthrop -- The idea of textuality being connected to representation and thus gender, class, etc. helps me understand more about what's at stake in thinking about the place of the body in relation to electronic realm, specifically through the idea that the body as a mapped surface inscribed by particular constructs can't escape or become dis-imbricated (sorry, I'm making up words) from language, textuality. Is recognition of this self as text as representation part of what's at stake in moving from "edges" to "surfaces"? I'm wondering if the metaphor of edges refers only to a sort of frontier mentality, or if there are other layers in this term that I'm not getting.

<29...Amy > I'm glad we're (John, Marc, Prof. M., Anna) talking about DoK, b/c I--with my need to categorize--want to come to some conclusions about the codex books we're reading in this class. If DoK isn't hypertext or hyperlit, then how (in what ways) does it fit into this course? Does this take us back to our conversations about what is a "successful" (vs./and "good") hypertext?

<30...John Priestley> Kim et al.--I've been interested recently in the inverses of this phenomenon of "stubborn presence"--I've been noticing that hypertextual writing is highly infectious, and I find it difficult to write long, linear documents now. I tend to write in lexias, and only by a concerted effort can I suture over the gaps to make a "present-able" linear rhetoric.

<31...Petersen> Priest: You think you're so tough cos you know all dem big words. But I don't see the distinction you're making between hypertext and the anachronistic encyclopedia. Sure, this may be an old form, but isn't that form hypertextual in the sense(s) that we've discussed? Even if you don't think that _DoK_ is a 'true' hypertext, wouldn't you say that it is at least hypertextual?

<32...Hyoejin> Professor Moulthrop: you mentioned above and in your essay about reconsidering claims that people like Kroker make about converting bodies into the Net I think your point about Landow's convergence of rethinking subjectivity in relation to electronic texts is especially relevant to me. I have heard arguments that render the net as a neutral space, and I am rather uncomfortable with that idea because as you've suggested that's not completely accurate. I've experienced ways of representing myself through my web page which allows some flexibility and agency in the way that I construct my subject positions, however I feel hesitant about how that "erases" the markings of my ethnicity and gender, power marking. I fear that this attitude can too easily be used to reify hegemonic definitions of electronic subjectivity rather than noticing and validating difference.

<33...C.Lenart> jan, you write that we can change the context of other works with links and comments from our home pages. do you think that this recontextualizing is a two-way street? changing links _from_ your homepage is an obvious way to exert some kind of authority over it. does the thrust of a homepage change based, though, on who can get to it? to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to know who has a link to your page.

<34...Stuart> Robert -- At the moment, scholars are relatively skeptical about Web publishing because they're afraid it won't be properly peer-reviewed. Once that hurdle is passed, I don't foresee much resistance -- but that's precisely because most academics will use the Web to do what they're presently doing in print -- which is to answer your second question -- YES, it's enormously frustrating to write about hypermedia in mono-media. The questions are not just of techne but of *genre* too.

<35...J. Dietz> In Delany's Babel 17 he muses on the idea that our thoughts are a product and result of the language which subjects and forms us. In some ways I think that the language which we speak, English, will limit our ability to effectively create and utilize the abilities inherent in electronic writing. It seems to me that English is designed, and based on linear thought. It seems to me that hypertheory will have much difficulty getting past the infancy stage because of the language constraints.

<36...Len> JP an Marc: cld it be the case that the hypertextual 'informand' is created in one's forming/reading something like DoK, so that while it ain't digital hypertext it can be called 'conceptual hypertext'? And John: how's the reading experience w/DoK different than the one we usually associate w/a dictionary or encyclopedia?

<37...heather sims> Joe What is your idea of an "attractive" hypertext? Is it something that has a beginning, middle, and end? Maybe the very nature of hypertext being something that offers different alternatives for everyone is in itself the attractiveness of it. The reader finds their own routes through the reading thus making it meaningful to themselves. Not because it has a pretty cover or is something that is concrete and absolute, but because they can make it what they want it to be. The attractiveness is due to the mastery that the reader finds over the text for themselves, rather than something that is passed down by the author.

<38...jan> John: I've been feeling the same way, but I'm also trying to make more readable/ interesting/thought-provoking hypertexts as well, with complex ideas and intricate structures. Hypertext should be more than slick graphics and other texts linked to one another. The temptation I think is to have the texts speak for themselves, which is fine, but some discussion of rationale and connections is needed to. I think that the dynamic nature of the hypertexts cannot be avoided. Even as I am feeling more comfortable in the forum, I am still renegotiating the way that I want to position information.

<39...Hyoejin> Kim, I really wonder what displacing body with text will do for theories lauched by Irigary, for example, that try to reclaim the body as a surface that does more than validate male-centered projections of self, anatomy, etc. What do you think?

<40...John Priestley> Amy--I should revise my earlier claim about encyclopaedias. If you just flip through DK, it gives that appearance, but if you try to follow the lines it suggests, it thwarts you at every turn. I was baffled when Jason said he was able to follow certain linear threads in it--it seems to me that the damthing rhizomes out on you every time you try to do that. In that sense, it's subersiveley hypertextual, but very much author-directed; it leaves you feeling like a plaything for Pavic.

<41...Stuart> Kim -- I guess the edge/surface distinction is pretty much attached to Haraway, and so, yes, surfaces meaning zones of encounter, not cleanly demarcated frontiers, binaries, totalizing oppositions.

<42...C.Lenart> heather, you mention the exclusionary a spect of the net and hypertexts. an interesting article in the sunday _wash.post _ opinion section cited stats from commercial subscribors (am.online, compuserve and the like) illustrating the dominance of males 21-40 (white, no less) on the net. what interested me even more, however, was that the author saw this slant as a hinderance to the net becoming a mass/multi-media tool of consumerism--as t hough this were the aspiration of some personified net.

<43...J. Dietz> Dr. Hatfield, I guess I am thinking about the r esistance to the internet that people seem to demonstrate to me. I have been ex plaining to my parents, friends, etc. about our Hypertext class. They don't seem to be particularly responsive or interested in what I am sharing with them.

<44...Len> Chris L: there are ways to build two-way links to/from web pages, esp. when the target has 'labels' you can specifically use; but is this knowing who got to your page a matter of mastery or some other issue of control?

<45...kim> John -- about lexias, I think it was in "Shadow of an Informand" that even this term is described as too static -- as potentially blocking a sort of dynamism that should be present in hypertexts or in the rhetoric about hypertexts. I'm not sure which. That distinction (is it dangerous because of the way it makes us think of the thing, or because it actually affects the hypertext itself (print rhetoric, that is) is part of what I was trying to get at with me earlier question. What do you think?

<46...Petersen> Heather: I agree that perhaps the digital writing space (no, I'm not trying to appropriate Bolter) isn't really as empowering as some (esp T. Nelson) would have us believe. I'm thinking in particular of the cost of digital rhetoric on the average person (i.e. computers cost money, the only reason I'm involved in this conversation is because as a student I get to use the school's computers). On the other hand, for those who can 'get in' to the electronic space (like this WebChat session) all the gender/race/whatever boundaries can fall away. For instance, all the class members know who I am, but did Dr. Moulthrop know that I am a man before other people started referring to me as 'Marc'? Probably not. By only using a last name, I could disguise my gender. Since we aren't all face to face, any racial preconceptions probably don't apply. So, in that sense, this is a freer (Freed?) environment.

<47...Anna Carter> Professor Moulthrop, You link Heidegger's notion of "throwness" with the "breakdown" that occurs in the hypertext environment. How does Heidegger's notion of "throwness" relate to both the reader and the author? Does it give the reader and the author a common field of ground to work with?

<48...jason booth> In "Traveling in the Breakdown Lane," you use MUDs and user interaction with MUDs as a frame for considering the notion of gaps. Taking this connection further, do you feel that "good" hypertexts can be judged on similar criteria as "good" interactive games?

<49...jan> Chris, no I don't think it is a two-way street for exactly those reasons. I cannot make any access my information (I"m not sure I would want to) As an oversubscriber to e-lists, I select the information I want to interact with. I delete over half the messages I get in a day. This is one form of choosing/writing/authoring the text.

<50...Len> Joe: got ya, but have they been 'there' and tried it? Often, hypertext and netsurfing don't make lots of sense to folks who haven't done it; but back to the question, in a way: how wld you make a hyperdocument more 'attractive'?

<51...Freed> Sure, appropriate my name again...(sheesh!)

<52...Hyoejin> Peterson: what would someone do with my "handle," Hyoejin? What would be the benefit of my disguising my ethnicity? Though I guess my name disquises gender to a certain extent. I've been thinking about that in terms of my web page and how my readers might piece together who I am by what is represented on the pages. What do you think?

<53...jan> Joe, I have a feeling that the "new" knowledge that you have t hreatens others and so they choose not to deem it important. This is completely speculation from personal experience.(No theory intended.)

<54...Len> Anna: what do you think about the throwness of w riter/reader? what would a 'common ground' mean?

<55...Robert Brown> Dr. Moulthrop, now that time separates us from th e Gulf War, it doesn't seem so monumental in terms of historical development as you seem to portend in the narratives threads of Victory Garden. It was really another splendid little war although peace in the Middle East seems ever so distant. How do you view the significance ofthe Gulf War from the vantage point of today?

<56...J. Dietz> Heather, I am not really sure what an "attractive" hypertext might be. I guess I feel that in some ways it has to be linear to some (undefinable to me) extent, just because of the properties and limitations of the language that we are using. Perhaps humans could open up new dendrite/synapse connections to handle different ways of writing/organization but would others be able to follow these paths?

<57...C.Lenart> len, do these 2-way links you describe exist so that there is no way to know who placed it? if this is the case, it would seem to destabilize any notion of control one might have by est.links to/from pages. if anyone may flesh out an essay by creating links to/from it, control by way of contextualizing is thrown away--or at least up in the air where everyone can play.

<58...kim> Hyoejin -- I'm not that familiar with Irigary -- however, it's hard for me to imagine the text actually displacing the body. To me the idea that we're out there in the net, out here now, as representations is another formation of how language, culture, etc. already map the body -- it's not at all an escape from gender, class, etc. as these markings are maintained in and through language -- the body may interact in different way than it does in physical presence, but it can't be displaced be text -- only re-represented. As for what that does to Irigary's ideas about the body, I don't know, I'm not sure how she theorizes, accomodates the intersection of body and language/culture.

<59...heather sims> With electronic text and the disruption that it causes to identity I see a future in which people will rely more and more on language to help identify themselves, through alias's and other stylistic devices. It could be that as time goes on we will rely more on language and thus be more confined by it as it becomes the primary way that we will have identities. As Jan was talking about trying to find ways to maintain her gender on the Web, we will find society turning more to language. This could pose difficulties since language is very context driven and ambiguous.

<60...Stuart> Argh, so many wonderful things to think about, and only this little butty window! Anna -- "thrownness" is Heidegger out of Winograd and Flores, who put a particular cognitive spin on it, but you touch on something important -- reader and writer are both dislocated. I'm not sure they're therefore on equal footing. I know some ht writers (C. Guyer, M. Joyce) who say yes, and others (K. Cramer) who say no.

<61...Petersen> Priest: Oh yeah, you're definitely a 'plaything for Pavic' when you're slogging yer way through DoK, but isn't that true of digital hypertexts as well? When I make a link between two nodes in StorySpace, I create that link for a reason. Does any hyper-writer makes links without some sort of conscious choice? I hate getting into these author-ity issues again, but in any given hypertext you're probably going to be subject to the whims of the hyper-writer. That is, unless you go through and start making your own links, in which case, Priest-man, you have won.

<62...John Priestley> Robert--I do see a lasting impact from the Gulf War, which I think Joe Dietz alluded to early this semester: we went from War Coverage as Televeision Movie (Viet Nam) to War Coverage as Video Game. Our representations of wars are becoming more remote from actual human interaction, suffering, dominance relationships, etc.

<63...Stuart> Robert -- everything is monumental while it is happening. That's the nature of television, by which we mean, reality.

<64...jan> Did I say that I was trying to maintain my gender on the web? No, I don't care if I maintain it or not. I would like to see the web be a place where gender didn't presuppose your sucess or failure, but I like that everywhere.

<65...Len> Chris L: I guess I'm not sure about 'knowing' who placed the link--assuming a web doc is built by a group, then you'd have the same kinds of author-sorting problems you always do w/collaborative texts; but in a web document consisting of parags derived from other web docs, then wouldn't one also give up the sort of control you're aiming at? Too, it would be possible to build a web doc that, like our 'edit your home page' scripts, wld allow users to add links and/or other materials to it. So then what happens to context? Wouldn't this be another example of Moulthrop's idea of the informand, where 'context' is defined by the spacetime of the reading/concretizing of the links?

<66...J. Dietz> I certainly would have a map of the hyperdocument. I would put lots of links in it which would enable the reader/editor to reach different hierarchies of information depending on the level he or she is interested in pursuing. I would use lots of symbols, signs, graphics, sounds, because they would be much closer to a "new" language which would utilize the links and gaps of hypertext.

<67...Stuart> Robert -- more on VG after the war has gone through re-runs... I confess, going back to that text (VG, not the war) now is a lot like watching old tapes of "Twin Peaks." Unripe nostalgia. But that's the nature of cultural enterprises, especially now that we produce culture so broadly and frenetically.

<68...C.Lenart> hyoejin, the navigator of your homepage can _try_and formulate some personal dossier on you by the links, organizing qualities and cake-frosting decor present, but you've still got the basic idea of stuart's first message at work:there's no bodies on the net. they can try and construct you, but you can construct right back (not to mention the nodes someone else might add to slant the view--say, links to everything related to sex and dogs).

<69...Hyoejin> Kim, it's been a long time since I've read Irigaray myself, what I remember is that she tries to reclaim the female body and break its oppositional relationship to the male, the one, sex. I think she theorizes the intersection of body and language through valorizing multiplicity and fluidity that the female body seems to metaphorize (metonymize?). Anyway, I see what you're saying about texts re-presenting body . . . then where does subjectivity come in? Is it based in the body? or in texts? in bodies as texts? or texts as bodies? (Sorry, I'm kind of spiralling)

<70...Stuart> I like J. Dietz's notion of a "new language" of hypertextual symbols. Anybody suggest some elements of this?

<71...ChrisCouples> joe-why a map? Why not build hyperdocuments that are both linked but also random access. It appears to me that this might be the pinnacle for allowing the wreader to arrange the information contained w/i the hypertext as she likes to; of course, this begs the question of the author-ity of choosing and placing the information contained within the hypertext, but it's a start (?).

<72...Amy> Hyoejin, Jan, et al.--I've been intrigued by this strain of "gender" speculation; it reminds me of that article I can't stop referring to by Paul Jay--"Posing." I view our homepages as posing, exercises in self-creation. You can emphasize or de-emphasize sex, class, and culture as desired; I view either move as empowering in that you're authoring your/self. Well...I'm not really sure where I"m going w/this.

<73...John Priestley> Serpent--I didn't mean that point about DK's author-driven-ness as a distinguishing factor from hypertext. I would suggest that neither medium can be clearly shown to result inevitably in readerliness or writerliness. I was just trying to complicate my earlier claim, which was clearly too simple to be very helpful. kapeesh?

<74...heather sims> Dr. Moulthrop do you see electronic text as replacing printed books in the future?

<75...Len> ChrisL: I'd agree one can construct an 'identity' for the builder of a page; but why is that any more or less compellin g than someone else's construction. Consider Stefan's e-mail address: 'fascist' ; this wld seem to invite the respondent's construction in a certain way, but must that construction be definitive or even accurate? what about irony in these interactions?

<76...kim> Question for anyone -- I'm going to go back to the print-based rhetoric and how it is stuck in our thinking/doing of electronic realm/hypertexts, etc. I think what's confusing me here is I'm making a distinction between thinking and talking about electronic realm (the rhetoric) and actually participating in it (the actual hypertext, for example). So, when I asked earlier about why the persistenc of print based rhetoric is stubborn, I was asking whether it affected the actual oject or (just) the rhetoric of the object. Am I making a print based distinction here? One that is impossible to make? Can a hypertext be fluid and dynamic (to the reader going through it) if we talk about it as a series of stable lexias the way Landow does?

<77...jan> I think that the internet can be a neutral ground for gender race etc. I think that early data might be a scare-tactic though. Hyoejin, have you done any research that shows that women and minorities who have the access are at a disadvantage in any way? Are these groups more likely to be resistant to the forum? Do these groups not see any relevant places on the internet for them? I'm asking sincerely.

<78...J. Dietz> Heather, do you mean academic books, fiction, comic books, etc. I guess it would depend on how long the rain forests hold out.

<79...John Priestley> kim, can you clarify what you mean by the distinction between the object and its rhetoric?

<80...jan> Amy, I just don't think that recreating yourself has to be androgenous recreation.

<81...Hyoejin> Chris L, I like the idea of "construct<ing] right back," as you say. I imagine that being the way I might subvert easy assumptions, or the consistent portraits that readers might like to piece together. They might find some dissonance between my page on sex and dogs and my Christianity page, or my deviant body piercing jello wrestling page and my academic essays. But the idea of no bodies on the net, well, yes I see there is no physical body there, but where are notions like race and gender projected on but the body, whether it is a virtual body, or an imaginary construct or whatever . . . what do you think?

<82...Petersen> Freed: I'll appropriate your name whenever I want. C'mon, it's a verb. I like that in a name. Hyoejin: You know, I considered the example of your name, and then decided not to mention it. To be honest, I was sort of hoping that would slip through the cracks. I don't mean any offense, it's just that this issue is so damn chewy that we could (if you like) spend hours talking about it and write a book to boot (feel like collaborating with me on such a project? I'm serious now...) I'm actually somewhat doubtful of the extent to which any of this masking really empowers anyone, but the bottom line to me is the choice involved. Users can disguise themselves IF THEY WANT TO, but by no means do they have to do so. If you desire to adopt a chimerical subject/identity/self, then in this environment you can, whereas in a conventional classroom, for instance, you cannot. I don't know that there is any benefit to doing this, and therein lies the crux of the whole issue. I think I've reached the point of confusion where I start to repeat myself, so I'll stop now. Whadaya tink?

<83...Amy> Jan--could you go further in explaining how you think the internet can be a neutral ground for gender, race, etc?

<84...Len> Stuart: on hypertext symbols; don't know if you've had a chance to read Greg Bear's SF, but in the Eon/Eternity pair, folks from a future human society wear small devices that project icons detailing their various ranks and affiliations, moods, etc. I wonder if hypertext symbols mightn't be along the same lines, serving both metonymically and iconically?

<85...Stuart> Heather -- electronic texts will not replace printed books. Printed books will replace themselves.

<86...Anna Carter> Marc, Isn't your gender an inherent quality of who you are / your identity? Do we become freer in this environment or just more disguised?

<87...J. Dietz> Dr. Moulthrop, do you think that electronic media can, and will be utilized to make a more democratic, possibly environmentally geared world because of decentering of power?

<88...Robert Brown> Dr. Moulthrop, when you compare VG to Twin Peaks, you equate it to something like a dramatic soap opera. What is it like to write fiction in hypertext format. While conceiving of VG, did you set out thinking in terms of creating mini-narratives. Was central concept that it was to be first and foremost cultural criticism, or an artistic experimentation with new narrative forms? What's narrative supposed to look like in hypertext?

<89...heather sims> Joe, how do you see the symbols as ultilzing the gaps? Wouldn't they just add another gap for the reader ot deal with?

<90...kim> Hyoejin -- Exactly. (Just kidding). I think it's bodies as texts and texts as bodies (subjectivity). The two can't be separated; it's like trying to separate language from consciousness/self. But this is an idea that doesn't necessitate the interface between human and electronic realm. I think the idea of text as representation is important for the way it says we can't assume gender, race, etc. disappear in electronic realm just because physical body does, however, I'm not sure what else it adds to how we theorize relationship between subjectivity and body/language. I think that's pretty open territory right now, and the key is just to be wary of assuming it's a culturally free space.

<91...Amy> Jan--I don't think it has to be androgynous either, and I didn't mean to imply so. :) Going back to my earlier query...I would have to say that the internet can't be neutral, just as an interchange in Daedalus can't be neutral. Hold on...I'll come back to this...I need to scroll back...

<92...Len> Anna: doesn't the idea of an inherent part of identity conflict with the 'poststructural subject' that several of our texts have been enacting? how do you see these ideas coming together?

<93...Stuart> Len -- I don't know those Bear novels, though I know and love _Blood Music_; Walter Jon Williams has a very well developed theory of symbolic language in _Aristoi_. It's a kind of neurolinguistic programming based on Chinese ideography, martial arts, and dance.

<94...John Priestley> Anna--I would argue that there's great potential for freedom in disguise. It may not be a freedom that is transferrable to other modes of our lives (which I think is what you were getting at), but as these modes increasingly supplement our lives, it's not a wasted effort to take a few liberties within them.

<95...J. Dietz> Yes, I think you're are right. But couldn't the gaps themselves be symbols?

<96...ChrisCouples> Anna, perhaps in this environment, one gains some measure of (gasp!) autonomy, in that one is free to (re)construct one's gender along whatever lines one chooses, and is (at some level) free from having intersubjective influences interfere/abet that construction. In an editable (by the wreader) ht, sure, this construction can be 'messed' with, but at some level, the ability to cast oneself as male/female/straight/gay/etc. almost has to be autonomizing. Doesn't it?

<97...C.Lenart> len, i don't think identity constructs need to accurate (tangent: with some 80%+ users of sex-chat lines men, i wonder who is fooling whom) and i especially like the idea of irony being included. you ask if a construction needs to be 'definative'; if one doesn't check all assumptions at the door, don't you 'define' (for yourself at least) the construct you interpret? (i don't think i'm expressing this question clearly)

<98...Len> Stuart: we've come upon 3pm--can you stay until 3:15 or should we cut you loose?

<99...jason booth> John: Actually, it's not that hard to make "paths" in a hypertext. One consistent aspect of discussing this environment is that while hypertexts are projected as webs and non-linear texts, reading them is discussed using paths (which for me imply sequential, linear movements through a text). Coming from a book culture, I consistently read hypertexts using paths. As you pointed out, DoK rhizomes like crazy, but when I read it, can I really follow all these paths at once? One of the aspects I'm struggling with in terms of creating a hypertext is just how many branchings can be sustained from any given point. We've been working with texts where we can go from A to B to D and back to B, but I don't recall any text where the reader goes from A to B, C and D at the same time. The former example still seems linear to me because I can trace a single "line" through the places I've been. In the later example, I can't trace my movement through the text with a single line and this reminds me more of a non-linear or web reading of a text. I guess my main question is, can we read texts in the non-linear fashion I've just described? Is our nature to read "linearly" a result of a book based culture? I haven't decided yet.

<100...jan> Kim, yes I think that the object and its rhetoric is the tough distinction. I think this goes back to looking at something (the structure, the strategies, etc) verses through something, what do the words and structures tell me about this totally unrelated things. Can we accurately project that we will always see hypertext as the object and the rhetoric (how it tells us and what it tells us) or will it become the technology or vehicle through which we read other information and blindly miss the other infromation? How do we prevent this?

<101...Len> Stuart: but before you fly, can you send us some links/pointers to Johndan Eilola's work?

<102...kim> John -- I think maybe this distinction might not be possible. But, what I mean by object is the actual experience of, for example, navigating through a hyperdocument. The rhetoric would be the language we use to describe the experienc of navigating through the hyperdoc. If we describe it with static print-based rhetoric, as a movement from one stable lexia to the next, instead of as a series of lines of flight that would imply more dynamism, does that necessarily make the experience of moving through it static as opposed to dynamic? I'm having a hard time making this question make sense. But, it seems to me that if the move is away from traditional books and linearity, then even the idea of moving from one lexia to the next, which could be called static, can actually be considered dynamic because of what it reacts against, though it might not be as dynamic and in flux as could be considered ideal.

<103...J. Dietz> Jason, you seem to be touching on and saying something that I have been trying to say all along. Thank you!

<104...Stuart> Robert -- I didn't know the answers to any of those questions when I started writing. In fact, the first 3-5 weeks of the project I spent theorizing myself to distraction. When I finally gave up, the thing just *happened*. Yes, I did design a whole bunch of little narratives (though many of them came along after the first rush). But what really drove the process, it seems to me now, was play of associations. Links and parallels. Thinking about how bits of the thing might articulate.

<105...Len> Jan: the Lanham thruAt is an interesting perceptional screen, not least because it reenacts the fore/ground distinction; but doesn't it also reinscribe a certain binary opposition that, maybe, hypertext cld exceed?

<106...heather sims> Anna, I think that electronic text both frees and restricts people. Some people like being ananymous, it allows them to take more risks, but they don't get credit for those risks so they are actually restricting themselves while freeing themselves.

<107...Stuart> 3:15 is fine for me

<108...Petersen> Amy: Yeah, I think you're right about 'authoring' ourselves with the web sites (I have trouble calling them 'pages'). I know that at least part of the reason you say that is because of your interest in autobiography, but merely by having these web sites and not identifying ourselves explicitly (e.g. Gypsy Hermit, Terrorist, Fascist) we create chimerae. While I'm sure that we are creating ourselves to an extent and giving lots of clues as to who we are (e.g. Simpsons images, pictures of Theo Fleury, links to a Philip K. Dick site), we're also (well some of us are) consciously avoiding telling anyone who we are. I guess my view of this is, "Hey, look at my web site and all the cool stuff there, don't look at me."

<109...Hyoejin> Jan, I haven't yet found research on the topic of minorities and women on the net. And this strain of thought hadn't really surface until recently. Right now I'm still in the speculation mode. I am hesitant to announce the net as a neutral space but as I've already mentioned I think that this does allow for the kind of agency and resistance that Paul Smith talks about in _Discerning the Subject_ moving around between different subject positions, resisting totalizing constructions of self and other. And this in many ways relates to what Prof. Moulthrop self-consciously refers to as the contradictory and fragmentary, irreverent and multiple nature of texts on the net. Anyway, Jan you ask good questions, questions that I don't really know how to answer with any certainty . . . if you take me as an example, you might say, here's a minority woman that has access and seems to feel that the internet does hold relevance for her, she doesn't seem disadvantaged in that sense, so it's hard to extrapolate from here. But I would argue that part of the disadvantage lies not only in access, but also the marginal positions they occupy in the culture at large which construct minority and gendered subjectivity, that construct self-perceptions, self-constructions that might be, if not disadvantaged, then are different from the mainstream. I don't want to go off the deep end in this totalizing opposition, as Len counseled me, it's important to notice the differences that are there even in what we'd like to totalize as the hegemony, but this is one way for me to look at this issue.

<110...John Priestley> Jason, I think the mode you describe is not non-linear so much as multi-linear. And I think we do it all the time. Narratives in print culture are, it seems to me, more often than not, told in a manner that cycles back around multiply through temporal space. Even in Classical literature, you start _in medias res_. "Plot" (the arbitrary construction of a singular time-line out of the diverse events given, it seems to me, is a construct of the reader and not of the author.

<111...Amy> Jan After scrolling back and looking over some messages, particularly the Kim/Hyoejin strain, I have more of a sense of where I'm going w/my "the internet can't be neutral" stmt....When creating a homepage, whether represent yourself "accurately" or "creatively," you do create a "self" that is politicized because it is being conveyed/expressed through language. Even if you view this creation as a mask or a new identity, it is still one that is politicized, tinged w/gender implications and so forth--regardless of whether or not that gender is yours...? Well, anyway, I think I've worn this one out...

<112...J. Dietz> Heather, what are some of the specific risks that one might take, other than having others form an opinion, or first impression about, gender, financial success, etc. by what you present.

<113...Stuart> Jan -- what would it mean for hypertext to exceed the binary opposition of figure and ground? I mean that more or less practically...

<114...jan> Amy, women can think and they can appropriate the technology as easily as men can. There is no essential difference that makes a man better at computers than women. It doesn't require more strength or other male attributes. As a matter of fact, if you wanted to make an essential argument about men and womean (though I don't really care to, but if you did) studies show that women are better at finely detailed activities that require a lot of patience. I'm not sure what your experience has been with the html induction this semester, but I'd say that a user definately needs those two qualities. Other than a little encouragement, I can't find any reason why men should be better suited to this than women. Even about creating spaces that interest one group or another, the net allows many ways to create those spaces with home pages, news groups etc. It's easy to create these spaces and ignore the things you don't want. I realize that this seems to contradict earlier arguments along the same line, but in advantages and disadvantages this environment seems to overlap.

<115...Len> Jan: shlda said 'figure/ground'; reminds me, to continue, of those great little picts with the rabbit/duck both built in; we render the image 'rabbit' or 'duck' but once we've done that the deconstruction of figure/ground as fixed binary remains active; so I'm wondering if that wouldn't also be true of a well constructed hypertext in terms of its continuing to multiply linearity even after that action is familiar; in a way, this would be like the continuing imaginative appeal of a great work of art--one learns to render/read it one way, but one can continue doing so in other ways as well, no?

<116...heather sims> Joe even if the gaps themselves are symbols they are still gaps, right? so the two terms are equivalent.

<117...C.Lenart> hyoejin, you're right-gender/race/identity projections need a screen and they are, i suggest, private constructs (like tillman's reference to the porno in her mind). there seems to be a similar dynamic in this restructuring of the individual and with the challenges that h-text gives us when we view them through our filtered eyes. though ideas like authority and the fill-in-the-blank demographic of said author are (hopefully) moot points (among other things), i still have a tendency to be tainted by my indoctrinated white-guy western mind.

<118...Petersen> Anna: Oh I'm not trying to suggest that we actually change anything. You're absolutely right; all we can do is hide or construct a facade.

<119...J. Dietz> Heather, you win

<120...John Priestley> kim--for a lexia to become more dynamic, is it necessary and sufficient to shrink it to a node that requires no stopping time? Are we then to distribute the text along the links, and have none at the nodes? I'm still not sure I know what you're getting at; but it seems to me that the model I've just suggested would be not the abolition, but the apotheosis of linear text.

<121...Robert Brown> Dr. Moulthrop, One of the things that Michael Joyce notes in the inset to the disc is the feeling of contextual complexity reading in your work left him with. Hypertext allows one to represent spatially the multi-voiced reality that exists all around us--some lives running simultaneously with our own with only a cultural in common--without our being aware of it. Did you seek to give the reader such an impression to overwhelm her with the multi-farious quality of our reality.

<122...Amy> Jan-- I think we've been talking about "neutral" in two different ways....I hadn't even considered the ideas of equal access to technology or equal "ability" when I was babbling earlier...sorry for the miscommunication!

<123...Anna Carter> Professor Moulthrop, How does the reader and writer's "dislocation" position them in terms of the "breakdown"? And (this might be a tangent), does this have any relation to Heidegger's notion of "umhiemlich" or homelessness and the poet's obligation to create language which "dares" unawareness of morality? ...

<124...Stuart> John P. -- what if your link-distributed text (which I've been thinking about writing, btw) were multi-linear? I.e., suppose at any point of continuation in syntax A, there were also possible divergences to X,Y,Z...?

<125...heather sims> Joe I think the risk of others opinions is a very large risk for a lot of people. We are raised in a societal atmosphere that says that it matters what others think. But beyond this is the risk of one's job, there friends, and there family. This may seem extreme but reflect back on the article, I can't remember which one, that talked about the IBM case where people where speaking out about the company because they were able to do so electronically. Being anonymous really changes things.

<126...Len> Stuart: I guess, in exceeding figure/ground, a complex hypertext would provide so many switchings of those priorities that the user wld be unable to proceed/process unless he/she took their de-construction as the norm; I don't think that opposition wld be destroyed, but multiplied so much that users might start to see both at once

<127...John Priestley> Stuart--I'm intrigued. What would be the meaning of these divergences without a stopping point to take account of present context and present trajectory?

<128...Hyoejin> Chris Lenart: I like your idea of the screen and eye (I) metaphor. I would argue also that what tillman is referencing as the porno in her mind is not merely a private construct. I think it is very much a product of culture, as well as iplicated in subjective (?) filtering, interpretation. In connection to the filtering and interpretation/reception of ht, it seems that our responses to it is largely informed by the print structures and its conventional rhetorics so that I would say that while this does function to restructure individuals and their approach to ht, I think that this is also a shift in a larger cultural attitude towards textuality, what might be the filter lens as you call it . . . something like that, Stuart says it much better . . (back to author, again?)

<129...jan> Len and Stuart, yes, I think that hypertext can be more than the binary, at/through or figure and ground in some settings. In this session, for example, we can re-read the interchange later as a text, but right now it is a dynamic forum that conveys information. I think that other hypertexts in e-environments can have this quality as well, if we emphasize the dynamic, malleable, revision aspect of them, and perhaps these kinds of sessions eventually will allow us to integrate more graphics, symbols, etc. as quickly as we can type out these comments in an interactive setting. This is difficult to project, what do you think?

<130...kim> John -- Well, I'm back from the dictionary, so I guess I can respond. What I'm referring to with the whole static/dynamic discussion is the implication in parts of "Shadow of Informand" that we still haven't reached a point of thinking/doing hypertexts as fluid and dynamic -- the example used there was Landow, in that he seemed to refer to the lexias as stable points. So, in a way I agree with what you're saying (if I understand it) about how the alternatives to this kind of stability can get ridiculous. The whole issue of where the line is between static and dynamic is what I'm confused about, since obviously we need stopping points.

<131...Len@<IMG ALIGN=left HSPACE=10 SRC="http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/webchat/frog.thumb.gif"> @1@Jan: yes, if the graphics are like this one--preset icons, that is...:)

<132...jan> Amy, sorry, I'm getting on a soap-box here--a little out of control.

<133...C.Lenart> stuart, your mention of multi-linear texts brought to mind something i wondered about while reading vistory garden. i hope this isn't insulting, but were all of the links present conscious additions? (a nice way of asking if they were non-arbitrary). this relates to something the class has been musing on: what constitues a good/effective h-text?

<134...John Priestley> kim--precisely my point. I don't think absolute dynamism is possible or useful.

<135...Petersen> I'm going to stab out on a (slightly) different branch now. We keep referring to our homepages, and I'm reminded of something from Stuart's "Getting Over the Edge" where he sees the notion of the 'homepage' to be used in a comforting way (I'm paraphrasing here, give me a minute to get the source). I agree that this (the idea of a 'home page' is a somewhat misleading, even insidious, notion. `Home' often represents safety, privacy, freedom (e.g. walking around in your underwear) and ownership (_my_ house, _my_ bed, _my_ books). Few, if any, of these ideas actually apply to what we're doing on the Web, perhaps moreso for us (hyperlit folks) than for others because our 'freedom' is controlled by the university.

<136...Anna Carter> John, Thanks for summarizing, CLEARLY, what I was trying to muddle out. I agree with you and Marc.

<137...J. Dietz> Does hypertext actually comment, criticize, and build on the actual physical world, or does it create its own electronic world which in many ways could replace the physical world. Already, there is plenty of "home" shopping on the internet. Thank you Dr. Moulthrop

<138...John Priestley> Thanks, Dr. Moulthrop.

<139...jan> Stuart--thank you for participating in our discussion with us. I find that I ask more questions than I find answers, but that makes it fun.

<140...Hyoejin> Professor Moulthrop: thank you for your time and your thoughful responses! It was great to you a part of our class discussion.

<141...Len> Yikes!! Sorry, everyone, but the next class is pressing on the door; Stuart: many thanks for your participation!! We'll be in touch soon by e-m.

<142...jason booth> Thanks for joining us Dr. Moulthrop.

<143...Amy> Stuart--Thanks for comin' out!

<144...heather sims> Dr. Moulthrop, thanks a lot for participating in our chat

<145...Anna Carter> Proffessor Moulthrop, THANKS a lot for chatting with us! Best of luck with your future projects.

<146...Petersen> Oh here's the reference I made earlier from "Gettin Over the Edge": "Authors representing themselves on the Web organize their work around the comforting notion of a 'home page' (December and Randall 1994)." Stuart: Thanks for your time. I enjoyed this opportunity to converse with you, in however vague a way.

<147...C.Lenart> stuart, i don't know if you are real or not, but thank youss. . . regardless, 'stuart'.