Literacy," he not only explains some of the logistics of writing in hypertext, but he also

presents many of his own opinions about writing in this medium. Although I did not

agree with all of his views I did find the essaythought provoking. Brent's view that

this hypertextual format will revolutionize reading and writing in posotive ways is a

more optomistic outlook than I hold for this new writing medium. It is good to have

a posotive outlook about this new form of reading and writing but I think something

that has the potential to so drastically change the way we read and write should be

approached with great caution.

In support of the hypertext medium , Brent denies David Kolb's opinion that it

"dissolves into a cloud of free associations." However I agree with this "free

associations" theory. It has been my experience the the hypertextual material often

times goes in too many different directions making it difficult to dicern a discussion

or plot. One can be lead on a seemingly never ending goose chase through dense

"pages" of information. Often times one is left with a feeling of failure to have come

up with the message or thought the author has intended. The argument gets lost

in the maze of the many different paths available to follow. It is not hard to lose

sight of the original direction of an authors argument.

Because this is not linear writing an author does not have to pick out short

quotations or paragraphs from other sources that support his or her argument, they

only have to refer the reader to the other work. So instead of having a small piece

of anothers' work that pertains to the author's argument many times the reader is left

to sort through the entire piece in sesarch of the fracion of it pertaining to the author's

original argument. The remainder of the information often times has little to do woth the

author's meaning or topic of discussion. I have found this becomes very time consuming

and often causes great frustration on the part of the reader. When writing in linear

text all of this confusion is avoided. All of the information you need is right there. The

argument is set up, one piece after the other.

Brent's comparison of electronic forms of knowledge and the past oral societies

is an intreaguing one. I found myself in agreement with his assumption about

copyrights and endangering knowledge by endangering the ability to profit from it.

These days when someone wants to write something they must constantly be looking

over their shoulder, making sure they are not writing anything that could be

misconstrued as someone else's. It is not hard to see how this private ownership of

knowledge has become detrimental to freedom and creativity of communication

through linear writing. I think the hypertextual format can be benificial, allowing for the

breakdown of the copyright barrier.

The electronic forms of knowledge allows for a tremendous amount of freedom

to mix ideas. Using this medium it is possible for a writer to incorporate other people's

thoughts into his or her own writing, making their position or message much more

dynamic. However along with this new found freedom to pull thoughts and information

from other works comes a responsibility of the author not to leave the reader,

"bumbling about in the dark." Because of this ability to mix ideas and have links to

other works pertaining to a subject, this medium seems condusive to gathering

information. In addidtion, because of these qualities, electronic textdoes not seem

conducive to proving a single point or presenting an strong argument.

I found it very interesting that Brent used hypertext to write his essay

about rhetorics of the web yet he did it in a more linear fasion, counter to convention.

He wanted to make sure his arguments were easily understood without distraction.

Therefore he placed all of his links at the end of each page unlike the standard electronic

texrt format. This reaffirmed his skepticism about the ability fo the electronic medium

to convey an argument. I think he was wise to proceed with caution when attempting

to present an argument using the hypertext meduim. He expalins this perfectly himself,

"each node can lead can lead in a number of different direcions, there are no "next"

buttons that you can press to follow a path throughout the text." In my opinion

this format is not condusive to presenting convincing arguments. The reader can too

easily select his or her way out of the clear path of the argument. It is necessary to

have two different mind-sets, one for reading linear text and one for reading electronic

text. We are so used to reading linear text it is difficult not to want to read everything

completely. Brent's evaluation of novice hypertext readers is a truthful one, "most

readers will not exaust it, though habit will lead them to try." From my own personal

experience with reading in this medium I can attest to how hard it is for one to be

selective because there is this overwhelming feeling that if something is not read

completely, something important is being missed.

With anything new comes some amount of skepticism and doubt and the

electronic text is no exception. It is hard tell how this medium will effect

the future of reading and writing because it is such a new format. I think it is

premature to say that electronic text will revolutionise reading and writig as we

know it. It has produced some promising benefits, such as allowing one to write

without the constant preoccupation with copyright infringement. However it has

not proven to be more effective than the linear medium in presenting a specific

point or argument.