Mini Project Statement:
How the intertextuality of a hypertext adds to the reading experience.
Introduction:
For this project I will look at how intertextuality and choices add to the reading experience, to do this we will look at two texts; ‘Text, Hypertext, and Hyperfiction: A Convergence Between Poststructuralism and Narrative Theories’ and “Textual Practitioners: A comparison of hypertext theory and phenomenology of reading”. We will then create a hypertext from a written text and show the participants the hypertext and the original text to compare their reading experiences of the two.
Context:
The first text that was looked at talks about hypertext intertextuality and about how because of intertextuality and choices the reader can have a greater experience and feel as though they are a part of the making of the text. The second text talks about the nature of a hypertext and about reading a normal printed text.
The Method:
The method will be analytical through the use of surveys with specific questions for the statement being investigated. The questions are as follows:
- Which method of reading did you enjoy more?
- Which method of reading were you more engaged with?
- Which method of reading made you feel more involved?
- Which method of reading did you prefer?
The Outcomes:
With the artefact and the survey I hope to find that the participants had a better reading experience when viewing the hypertext than when reading the same thing in a printed format.
Literature Review:
The first article looked at was ‘Text, Hypertext, and Hyperfiction: A Convergence Between Poststructuralism and Narrative Theories’, the section that was focused on was the section about intertextuality, it discusses how texts are mixtures of other writings that highlights the role of the author and the reader and brings in the notion of intertextuality. “a text does not convey a particular author meaning through a single narrative strand, but it is a combination of several voices from different authors, and a compilation of cultural textuality.”(Modir, Guan and Aziz, 2014), this quote shows that a text doesn’t convey one meaning through a single narrative strand but through a combination of different voices from different authors. It goes on to discuss intertextuality through print text, however it states that it is more prominent in hypertexts, “what has happened to the hypertext novel is that reality itself has begun to merely indulge in the narrative through referring to various real events and episodes of other texts.”(Modir, Guan and Aziz, 2014), this shows one way in which intertextuality works through a hypertext fiction. A hypertext doesn’t limit the reading of a text based on literary tradition, the hypertext can open the reading to endless possibilities through intertextuality, “instead of limiting one’s reading of a text based on its author and literary tradition alone, hypertext readers can open up their reading to an apparently boundless play of relationships through by intertextuality.”(Modir, Guan and Aziz, 2014).
The second article that was looked at was, “Textual Practitioners: A comparison of hypertext theory and phenomenology of reading” this article discusses the nature of a hypertext, mentioning its non-linearity which is its main characterising feature, it also mentions how the readers of a hypertext are seen as making the text as they have the option to choose which way they go in the text as opposed to the linear from of a normal printed text where they have no choice, “readers are conceived as ‘making’ or ‘producing’ the text as they choose a path through it.”(Carusi, 2006). It goes on to discuss the freedom that a hypertext offers to the reader, “hypertext has seemed to herald a new freedom for the reader; the reader unbound, just as the text, in a hypertext presentation, is literally unbound.”(Carusi, 2006). Another section of this article discusses what is experienced of reading is the afforded by linear text. It goes on to talk about the consciousness and how reading is a conscious act.
Methodology:
To collect the data I will create a survey to be handed out to the participants after they have viewed the hypertext and read the printed text, it will be handed out to 10 participants. I have chosen to use this method as it is easy to understand and gives the necessary data needed to be analysed. The data will be gathered and analysed through survey monkey.
Studio Practice:
The artefact is going to be a hypertext fiction which shall be created using Adobe Flash, this will then be shown to the participants. The hypertext will contain three chapters the first chapter will be the start and will lead to either chapter two or chapter three, chapters two and three will be two alternative endings.
Artefact:
Below is the hypertext that was created, along with the written text that was used. The written text only has one of the endings.
Chapter One: The grass is green and bright, its soft below the feet, the rabbit hops along, searching for something, their are two paths to take, left or right?
Chapter Two: The right path lead to, the softness of the sand, still damp from the retreating tide, the horizon vivid in the brilliant light, the sun melting into the ocean like a divine painting, the sunset is peaceful.
Chapter Three: The left path led to a dark beach with seaweed,the night is dark, cold, the sand is covered in sea weed, the waves splash of the rocks, the ocean and night are full of turmoil.
Results:
Below are the results gathered from the surveys that were handed out to 10 participants:
Question One: The first question asked was ‘What method of reading did you enjoy more?’ 80% of the participants chose hypertext while only 20% chose printed. This shows that out of the 10 participants the majority of them enjoyed the hypertext more than the printed.
Question Two: The second question asked was ‘What method of reading were you more engaged with?’ again 80% of participants answered hypertext with the remaining 20% answering printed. This shows that the hypertext was seen as more engaging for the majority of the participants.
Question Three: The third question asked was ‘Which method of reading did you feel more involved with?’ 90% of participants answered hypertext with only 10% answering printed. This shows that 9 out of the 10 participants felt more involved with the hypertext than with the printed words.
Question Four: The final question asked was ‘Which method of reading did you prefer?’ 60% answered hypertext with the other 40% answering printed. This shows that although more people were engaged with and felt more involved with the hypertext 40% of the participants still would prefer the printed text.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the data gathered from the surveys gave the data that was expected, the participants felt more involved with and engaged with the hypertext showing that the reading experience was more involving than it is with the written text. The outcome that was expected is the outcome that was received. If I could do the project again or had more time I would have used a better story and a larger participant number to allow for better and more accurate results.
Bibliography:
Carusi, A. (2006). Textual Practitioners: A comparison of hypertext theory and phenomenology of reading. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5(2), pp.163-180.
Modir, L., Guan, L. and Aziz, S. (2014). Text, Hypertext, and Hyperfiction: A Convergence Between Poststructuralism and Narrative Theories. SAGE Open, 4(1).
Catherine's IMAP 