This is one of the questions from Chelsea's blog and also the one that I chose to write about. I think that the Jackson in this piece is truly against hypertest. For me, this was a terrible thing to read because it kept getting off track, and not off track in a good way where there is a side story, but the story itself just got lost in nothing. At points in this article I went back to the beginning of the paragraph that I was reading, just so I could get some sort of understanding as to what I was reading. Every paragraph that she had for the most part started out fine, but as it went further n, I believe that Shelley got lost herself. It only seemed that she started a new paragraph once she had completely gotten of topic and almost as though she was lost in the woods, would jump onto another path, get lost again and find another path. My mind could not handle this. I hate it when writers get off track of their original idea, but it does not bother me as much when authors have side stories to get lost in, not just random metaphors as we see that Shelley has done here.
As I was reading this last night I began to wonder that perhaps Shelley had written this so terribly for a reason. Maybe she wrote this as the epitome of what a hypertext would be like, just as a way that she could completely denounce it. This was the only reason that I was able to come up with for this article being so bad and uncomprehensible. I am curious about the effect that the linear version had on readers, but I would not want to read it to find out myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment