Re: [-empyre-] academic writing and hypertext, forward from Vince Dziekan

At 18:44 -0700 29/5/03, Vince Dziekan wrote:
I found it a very invigorating challenge (I'm not
speaking of the technicalities of scripting, rather
the techniques of exposition and articulation).
Personally, I sensed that the "way" I tend to think
was actually accomodated by the form... don't know if
you intuitively may feel the same? It seems to
accomodate/encourage much more of a
collage-sensibility, but also a sort of way to
emphasise the not just literal linkages but also the
more "allusive"connections between entities (ideas,
resonances, trains-of-thought)... reading the
"betweens" of the lines as it were.

thanks, I'll check the links when i'm back in office land :-) And monash, well that makes things very interesting too (aside from non-Australian's, Vince is at Monash, I'm at RMIT, same city).

absolutely about the betweens of the lines. This sort of work produces a writing space (or whatever you want to call it, it is what i tend to think of as writing hypertext hypertextually, but that's just pragmatism on my behalf) where the possibilities between parts always present themselves as outside of the space of your writing - as a 'call' that your writing or work must respond to - and this outside remains a near future that of course always remains as future. As I write like this an idea of connection presents itself as any of actual (the node that ought to be linked to exists), possible (an idea that is yet to be sketched where I make the link to an empty node for later content), or something past possible where the link is made, the future node linked to but in fact the content never arrives. This demand to link and connect is not just within the writing or authoring, but also comes from outside, though in a manner where I'd probably say is immanent to a hypertextualised practice. There is a force immanent to the link which is not 'my thought' and is the manner in which there is a demand to link (connect, collage) in this medium. This force is productive and lies alongside of, ahead of, and outside of writing hypertext hypertextually.

An analogy I have used in the past, and which I still think works, is film editing. There is the material in the trim bin, and of course there may be some narrative imperative defining a metastructure that the edit responds to. But you can cut pretty much any shot at any point, and largely join it to any other shot (particularly if cutaways are used) and so the demand or imperative of the edit (why edit? why edit at that point? what is a 'good' edit? what is the good enough edit?) is somewhere between the editor, their decisions, the material, the narrative, and this immanent demand for the material to be cut. It is this demand to be cut (the ontology that drives this force to become part) that I think is much the same as what goes on in writing hypertext hypertextually.

So for me the between becomes the pursuit of this demand, which of course always remains just that. It does encourage other sensibilities, and it produces a strange amorphousness where you know your work surrounds or is attracted to something (i'd call it a strange attractor but would expect to be jumped on from a great height for that) but can never get to.

Adrian Miles
+ MelbourneDAC2003 digital arts and culture conference []
+ interactive desktop video developer []
+ hypertext rmit []
+ InterMedia:UiB. university of bergen []

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.