In this essay, I will share my experience of reading a hyperfiction and at the same time address several pertinent issues at the heart of electronic text. To begin with, a hyperfiction is defined by Barthes as "text composed of blocks of words (or images) linked electronically by multiple paths, chains or trails in an open- ended, perpetually unfinished textuality described by the terms link, node, network, web, and path." (1) In this essay, the hyperfiction A Woman Stands on a Corner Waiting for a Stranger by Linda Carroli and Josephine Wilson will be referred to. 

The reason why I chose to read this piece was because it had a very interesting title and I was curious as to who the woman and the stranger were and what the former was doing at a corner waiting for the latter. In other words, like in any other story, I wanted to know what happened. However, this piece did not give any concrete answers, which somewhat frustrated me as a reader. On a deeper level, however, I was intrigued as to the issues that were addressed within this piece.

Body

Briefly, this text explores issues that deal with the act of waiting and more specifically, of a woman waiting and the expectation that comes with it. Both the views of the authors and the woman waiting is dealt with from different angles. Along the way, little snippets of events are given which further illustrate the act of waiting or one of its related components such as what people do while waiting. 

Within this text, there are visuals such as pictures, portraits and even a postcard. At several pages, there is music and even a dialogue taking place within a chat room of sorts. However, not all is relevant and necessary to the development of the story I feel. Furthermore, the looped nature of several pieces make it annoying to the reader who is trying to follow the story. For example, the title page has Fur Elise playing non- stop. But thankfully, it does not take long to click on a part of the title to relieve you of this torture.

Besides this frustration, this hyperfiction was indeed refreshing from print text. The variety of font type, colour and size, and the unique paragraphing and placement on screen keep me interested, at least visually. It was also pleasant having vividly coloured graphics instead of the usual stale black and white of the common novel. 

Furthermore, I was glad to find that there were not too many links, and that they all linked back to the page where you started so that you can cover practically all the links without having to consciously go through the list. In other words, I could read in any direction without having to be bogged down by which links I have to proceed to or which I had already gone to.  

However, this was definitely not my initial impression of the piece. On the first reading, I was disoriented. What Barthes described as "an open- ended, perpetually unfinished textuality"(2) seemed entire appropriate at that time because I found myself more concerned with how I was supposed to read the piece than what the story was about. As such, I paid little attention to the story- line. After navigating through several links, I realised that there was no story-line in the conventional sense. What was presented instead were several different adaptations of what was happening. This was somewhat disappointing as I was hoping to discover answers to the questions that made me read the piece in the first place. 

Nevertheless, initially I was thrown aback by the fragmented nature of the piece. No doubt the links were continuous in that I did not find myself at an unrelated place in the story. However, I was very preoccupied with which links I had covered and which I had not. I had to make mental notes of the progress I was making in terms of reading all the links presented to me. This somewhat took the joy and excitement out of the whole piece. 

On the other hand, it did help that several links were repeated such that by entering enough links, you would be able to cover nearly all that the authors have written. For some, I would think that this repetitive nature would prove to be a source of frustration. However, personally, I felt that it was very helpful indeed. It did help to alleviate my preoccupation with reading all the links that were provided. It was only upon multiple readings that I was able to fully appreciate the piece.

At this juncture, I feel that it is appropriate to briefly examine the roles of the author and the reader. Is the author reduced to the role of a guide or enabler?  Perhaps so in other hyperfictions, but for this piece, with the unique "center" present (waiting and its accompaniments), the reader was relatively powerless in choosing content because the authors have already mapped out what is supposed to be read. Thus, to say that it is "open- ended" and "perpetually unfinished" would no longer be accurate. If external links were provided, however, this would no longer be the case for the reader would then have the choice of reading "outwards" rather than confined "within" the boundaries of the story- line.

As to the proposition that the author is "dead", it does not seem to be so in this case either. Indeed, the author is very much alive by the choice of scenarios that she presents to the reader. At the end of the day, she still decides the scope of what the reader reads by way of creating links, especially if they are internal.

Moving on to the role of the reader, as mentioned previously, the reader could be said to be powerless in that he can only read what the author has written. On the other hand, the simple act of choosing what to read and when to read it could be said to be a form of empowerment on the part of the reader. 

Previously with print text, you only had one choice of reading from cover to cover. Reading a text any other way would have been disjointed and most probably nonsensical. Now, it is possible to read several screens and yet be able to follow the story- line.  Thus, in this sense the reader has greater participation and is no longer as passive as with print text.

However, I beg to differ with Landow when he claims that  "the reader is not locked into any kind of particular organization or hierarchy." (2) I feel that there is still some form of organization or hierarchy though it may not be as evident as before. As mentioned, the author still decides what information to include in a piece or hyperfiction. He could easily create a hyperlink to a particular website over another website, or to one page and not to another. From there, he could create another layer of links or he could refer back to the main page. Thus, in this sense, I feel that the reader is still confined in some sense or another though I will not argue that there is indeed more freedom than before.

Lastly, I would like to add that I do not agree that there is a "dissolving of distinctions between writer and reader."(3) To say this would be extreme because it is to say that the writer and the reader are the same when they are clearly two separate entities, each with a specific set of tasks. As mentioned above, the reader is still constrained by the boundaries that the writer has pre- set. He can only open doors which the writer has created, and as such he is still under the control of the writer. No doubt, readers have greater access to how the piece is read than previously. However, this is not the equivalent of replacing the writer and thereby dissipating the role of the writer.

Conclusion

The issue of  whether hyperfiction is part of the future or just a fad exceeds the scope of this essay. Suffice to say, hyperfiction is not absolutely superior to print text. They each have their own plus and minus qualities and I feel that it is, in the end, up to the personal preferences of the reader at this current point in time. As for whether hyperfiction is a form of "an ideal textuality" (4) according to Barthes, I think that it is an improvement in many ways to print texts. But to say that it is "an ideal textuality" I think would be giving it too much credit, too soon.

Want to read other experiences of hyperfictions? Click here!

Footnotes

(1) Quoted from http://landow.stg.brown.edu/ht/history.html#1

(2) Ibid. 

(3) Sourced from http://landow.stg.brown.edu/ht/decenter.html

(4) Quoted from http://iberia.vassar.edu/~mijoyce/What_s_hypertext.html

(5) Quoted from http://landow.stg.brown.edu/ht/history.html#1