II suppose that the oral tradition is actually inverted in a sense. Instead of the speaker choosing the path, including back-tracking, the reader is now left with that responsibility. It is the ability to retrace steps in a story, the ability to be side tracked by some other possiblity that may or may not get you to the end is what I most associate with the oral tradition. In the progression of communication we have speech, Incunabula, the press, tv, and hypertext. (Very basically speaking)

• Speech -- the message sender guides the understanding of the receiver in a speaker-personal way.
• Incunabula -- the sender guides the receiver according to predetermined guidlines.
• The press -- every reader is guided by one sender in the same direction, textually speaking.
• TV -- every receiver is guided in the same direction by one sender according to preset guidelines.
• Hypertext -- every reciever is guided in a different and personal direction by one sender.

While in each scenario the receiver is guided by the sender, notice the archetypes. Look at how hypertext and oral-text are so similar in the freedom of the receiver and the sender to move. One day, if not already, it may become possible that each time you log onto a site the story is altered in some way, a certain link(s) may be blocked or omitted entirely. It is the freedom that I associate with both oral and hyper text. In the true meaning of text, a woven fabric as in textile, woven like a web, there are many different threads that may or may not lead to one place, the WWW is more textual than the press.

Q. How do you think Hypertext alters and enhances the flow of your narrative in 'Faith the Cat'.?

Enhances because it allows the subject of religion to be displayed accurately. To write a book on religion, barring choose you own way, Faith allows a reader to choose a path that he is comfortable with, much like a Christian or a Jew would choose a walk of life. Why is this different from a choose-your-plot book?

• A) See Previous answer.
• B)Hypertext is more subtle.

There is only a visual indicator of a decision. No turn to page whatever if you want to go here, etc. It is the uninterupted, except for loading, flow that I like. Even in a paperback, you have to flip the pages. Hypertext is to paper what film is to drama, all the action without changing the stage for each scene. Of course the live action is lost in film. What is lost in hypetext? Portability? Tactile response? I don't know.

Q. Where do you think the future of hypertext fiction is going?

I assume that one day it will replace most all of writing as we know it. Books, newspapers, school reports, dissertations, magazines, thesis, all will one day be hypertexted. Not in my lifetime, but I don't think this is being unreasonable. The problem is affordability. Plunking down $2000 for a good pentium and software is not in everybody's future. But not too long ago, neither was a Television...

Q. In one of these interviews Charles Deemer claims that; "I have a hard time imagining 'a popular hypertext novel.' I'm not sure readers want to do the WORK that it takes to read hypertext fiction." How do you feel about that?

Yes, I find that some people want to be spoon fed. Read, turn the page. That's all some folks want. But all things evolve and so will hypetext. So folks thought cars were too much and that horses worked just fine. Of course, now we deal with pollution and a dying atmosphere. I think, maybe I'm wrong, but hypertext is more of an intellectual contribution. Not a mechanical, coal burning, combustible engine. We should probably find cleaner methods of producing Hardware and new ways to power our pc's, but that's way off topic. I think, that people will either come around to PC thinking or PC executives will kill themselves for all that has been invested. Actually, there is no question in my mind that HTML will one day be taught as part of grammar class in the second grade or sooner.

Q. Do you think it is ever possible to satisfactorily finish a hypertext novel?

I think this argument is a bunch of bull. To consider life and all of it's possibilities, and then to feel unsatisfied by hypertext seems hypocritical. Hypertext is like every other work, an imitation of life. Do we feel unfulfilled by a painting? No, just because all we have is a snapshot of time with some scenery thrown in and we miss the peripheral grounds, we can not feel denied. Do we feel unsatisfied when we watch a movie? Just because an actor should or shouldn't have done something or didn't do something else does not mean that we should feel cheated.

We must remember that a hypertext novel is art. Nothing more, nothing less. At best a tranch de vi. At worst, a waste of time. If anything, we should feel so satisfied that we return for more, knowing that there is more. Like sex. Of course, if you look at hypertext as a novel, a paperback, then you should feel overwhelmed that you could not achieve every detail. That is the beauty of hypertext fiction, every time you read it you could be reading an entirely new novel. Just like knowing a good friend: you know the character but something new is there everytime, a new event, a new story. Hypertext then returns to the oral tradition. Have we come full circle? Is this the end? Probably not, just a new twist. The similarity between HT and life is impressive in that you may never be finished, yet when it's over you are! To me it's big. One day when we take it for granted, these questions will seem like "What impact do you think the toilet will have on man's relationship with nature? "Doesn't defecating in your own home seem somewhat of a regression?" ;-)

Copyright © L J Winson 1995 - 2000.
This page was last updated 14 Jun 2000