Reader Response and Hypertext
Another appropriate re-posting. Originally from January, 2007 also.
In order to examine how hypertext supports these theories, we first must look at the actual concepts in which the theories exist. Reader response, in a nutshell, focuses around the response of the reader to a text. On the other hand, deconstruction requires a reader to look specifically at the author’s choice of words, concepts, and oppositions in order to take apart what the author uses as the axiom of the text. In other words, deconstruction provides a reader with a means of poking holes in the text and reader response allows the reader to present a response after reading a text. I think the key to understanding how hypertext destabilizes these theories is to look at how the theorists expected a reader to use the theories to examine the text and how hypertext aids in the use of these theories.
I choose reader response. Given the fact that the general concept of reader response lies in how the reader responds, I think hypertext only aids in this study. When an author uses hypertext, the reader has a chance to interact more fully with the text itself. The reader immediately has the opportunity to click all, some, or none of the links to the text. Since reader response already assumes that a text is “alive” hypertext itself adds to the life of a text. Now the text is not only alive, but the reader can, in essence, communicate with the text. By clicking the hyperlinks, the reader responds to the text by investigating a term or concept that the text discusses. When the link appears, the text has, in a sense, responded. Therefore, the ability of a reader to choose to respond by clicking a hyperlink supports the use of reader response with hypertext. No longer is the reader’s response postponed until time manifests in which he can take the text away and research the concept spoken of in the text. Additionally, if the reader continues to click new links on the original hypertext link, they continue to add layers to their response. Essentially, it is still up to the reader to respond by clicking these links, but since hypertext makes these links readily accessible, reader’s are more prone to engage (whether they know it or not) in a reader response criticism. If you clicked the link above, you initiated a reader response. The depth and ways the reader chooses to respond to a text only deepens with the amount of hypertexts an author includes, but can also be enhanced with the amount of subsequent hypertext the reader follows.
Yet in the same way that hypertexts support reader response, it can also destabilize the theory easily. For example, if a writer publishes an article on a website today and does not maintain the hyperlinks, there will come a time in the future when the hyperlinks become inactive. Therefore, if a reader wishes to respond by using the hypertext, selects it, and gets this obnoxious page the reader cannot respond to the text as he wishes; instead, he is forced to settle with what responses the text still allows. In a sense, the dead links “age” the text and give it a certain sense of “mortality.” On the other hand, if a text contains a link to an article contained in a subscription service, like this example , then the reader may be denied the chance to continue their response as they wish. In this scenario, the text is not dead, but becomes somewhat of an elitist and allows access to only specific readers.
Obviously, Reader Response can be both influenced and destabilized with the use of hypertext. Even though many theorists see the growing use of electronic texts and hypertext as the death of the author, I believe that this death is entirely in the hands of the author. If the author chooses to adequately maintain the hypertext in their written work, the author continues to survive. I’ll post more as they come to me (through the week’s readings).
