ÐÏࡱáóododF·ý& chase through dense "pages" of information. Often times one is left with a feeling of a failure to have come up with the message or thought that the author had intended.

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 search of the fraction of it pertaining to the authors original argument. The remainder of the information often times has little to do with the author's meaning or topic of discussion. I have found this becomes very time consuming and often causes great frustration for the reader.

.

Brent's comparison of electronic forms of knowledge and the past oral societies is an intriguing one. I found myself in agreement with the his assumptions 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. (link to copyright) 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 beneficial, allowing for the break down 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."

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 text format. This reaffirmed his skepticism about the ability of 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 medium. He says it perfectly himself, “each node can lead in a number of different directions, there are no “next” buttons that you can press to follow a path throught 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. Because 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. AoptimisticIn this way Ifashionthroughoutconducive It seemsexhaustctronic text is no exceptÿÒ§u>¼€²í”v>¼ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿpages" of information. Often times one is left with a feeling of a failure to have come up with the message or thought that the author had intended.

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 search of the fraction of it pertaining to the authors original argument. The remainder of the information often times has little to do with the author's meaning or topic of discussion. I have found this becomes very time consuming and often causes great frustration for the reader.

.

Brent's comparison of electronic forms of knowledge and the past oral societies is an intriguing one. I found myself in agreement with the his assumptions 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. (link to copyright) 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 beneficial, allowing for the break down 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."

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 text format. This reaffirmed his skepticism about the ability of 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 medium. He says it perfectly himself, “each node can lead in a number of different directions, there are no “next” buttons that you can press to follow a path throught 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. Because 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. Aÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþ!ododFontght format to use. It is still in the first stages of experimentation, while we have had three thousand years of rhetorical interaction with the liner text. There will have to be much more experimentation with this new medium to discover whether it will be useful in presenting specific points and solid arguments. It has many qualities which make this presentation of rhetoric difficult, but tendency to be inconclusive is its greatest downfall. This makes it extremely difficult for the writer to present an argument and for the reader to make sense of the writing. For now it is wise to be skeptical about the electronic text. À!