Hypertext: Digression or Progression?

I am slightly disconcerted by the idea that hypertext, and particularly the associative thinking it fosters, creates the increased possibility for unnecessary connections, which take away from the focus of the reading of a piece, whether it be a paper, or a website, an encyclopedia, etc. In math proofs, you strive towards answering a question efficiently with the least amount of steps possible to find the simplest answer. Although math is not and should not be equated with writing, I feel that some general principles do carry over. Again, focus is being lost. Furthermore, in his writings, Vannevar Bush compares systems of information retrieval (now comparable to a search engine) to the human brain, which “operates by association…in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells” (44). The comparison is valid, but it should be said that by replicating our biological boons, we also run the risk of transmitting its corresponding problems. If while thinking, a person goes on a tangent, that goes on a tangent about the tangent, and so on and so for, the focus will be lost, and it is association that allows for this digression. In the standard linear style of writing, the opportunity for digression is not really possible within the structure of the book. Although “selection by association,” as Bush refers to it, is more organic, it is, by the same token, more unstructured and more prone to ultimate confusion.

What I do like is the way that Bush and later Nelson apply the freedom implicit with associative thinking in order to achieve a specific goal. They make progress, instead of going in circles or off on tangents. Bush describes, “The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships” (38). Instead of creating a maze, he seeks to stop the confusion caused by an already-existing labyrinth. He talks of doing this so that “man [may profit] by his inheritance of acquired knowledge” (42). He allows greater, quicker access to insights that already exist, maximizing their value. I appreciate the efficiency this promotes.

A further example of how hypertext can add clarity instead of creating confusion can be seen in the application of outline processors on websites. Basic outlines, full outlines, and full prose can be included, showing different levels of depth. This process makes plain the connections the author intends to make and which points are more important than others: “[T]he figurative process [of creating verbal structures] becomes a literal act” (Bolter 19). In addition to making the reader more aware of the writer’s argument, it also offers a writer a clearer understanding of their own progression of thought, helping them to maintain focus.

Hypertext has the potential to both destroy clarity and to add to it.



(Counter thought: I could reword the last sentence to read: Hypertext is thinking outside the box, but it can be used to reinforce the box. The box is clarity. But worded this way, clarity seems boring. People want to break out of the metaphorical box. So the question becomes “How important is clarity?” Is it a social construction holding us back in our comfort zones, afraid to experience something whose power we do not understand? How bad do we want the security of the box? Is hypertext a link—no pun intended—to an altogether new experience of reality?)