Is there an Author in this Labyrinth? Hypertext Fiction and Farrell's Textual Fallacy
ACM source attribution. Complete text, figures, tables, captions, equations, references, and appendices were converted from the authorized ACM archival HTML and verified against the supplied PDF for 10.1145/3511095.3531285. © 2022 Association for Computing Machinery.
Authors: Sam Brooker
Published in: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’22), June 28–July 1, 2022, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
In 2017 Professor of Literature John Farrell published The Varieties of Authorial Intention. Joining other dissenting voices past and present, this work addressed what the author considered a key tenet of mid- to late 20 th century literary criticism: that reference to authorial intention is out of bounds, literary works being constituted by the text alone. Hypertext fiction has its own complex relationship with the notion of intention. From earlier entanglement in post-structuralist approaches to network textuality and the potential for readers to evade authors via branching narratives, hypertext fiction emerged as a distinctive form of textuality that can express intention in unique and unexpected ways. How effectively do the three modes of authorial intention Farrell identifies - communicative, artistic, practical – map to hypertext fiction both past and future? Can this model – devised in the context of linear print writing – accommodate the unique form of textuality represented by hypertext, with its own affordances and opportunities to express intent? sam.brooker@richmond.ac.uk
1 INTRODUCTION
“Is there a reader in this labyrinth?” So wrote Jane Yellowlees Douglas, in a 1991 essay exploring the experience of reading Michael Joyce's seminal 1987 work of hypertext fiction afternoon, a story [1]. This question – and questions like it – formed part of the wider re-evaluation of the contract between readers and authors initiated by developments in the area of literary criticism, and how they intersected with interactive narrative.
Literary criticism of the mid-twentieth century was profoundly interested in the significance of authorial intention in discerning the meaning of a work. New Critics William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argued that the author's intention was neither “available nor desired” in judging the “success” of a work of art [2]; they would go on to label the pursuit of the author's intention as a method for identifying meaning in a work as the Intentional Fallacy. Literary theorist Roland Barthes similarly rejected the idea that any text consists of a “single ‘theological’ meaning” passed down from the author [3] in his essay The Death of the Author. In both cases the locus of the argument is the plurality of potential interpretations a work can afford, of which the author's intention is one of many.
In his influential Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Critical Theory and Technology, George Landow argues that hypertext “embodies many of the ideas and attitudes proposed by Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, and others” - a view summarized in his elegant phrase “contemporary theory proposes and hypertext disposes” [4]. Equally pithily, Yellowlees Douglas would later argue that “when you read your first hypertext, your first reaction is that the Author has not only been killed outright, but that he or she has been quicklimed” [5].
“No reading can fail to generate an author,” as philosopher Alexander Nehamas [6] expresses it. While Nehamas was seeking a middle way, wherein readers attribute intention to a hypothetical rather than an historical writer, there have been plenty of dissenting voices more explicit in challenging this downgrading of the author's status. American literary critic Eric Hirsch [7], for example, separated meaning (“what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence”) from significance (“a relationship between that meaning and a person”). In his 2008 essay Authority and the Death of the Author Jeremy Hawthorn makes a compelling case for the importance of recognising authors as historical figures [8]: “Textual decisions have interpretative force,” he concludes, whilst still recognising that other interpretations can exist. This, too, could be a conclusion drawn from the reader-response criticism of Wolfgang Iser, who identifies two equally valid polarities in authorial intent and individual reader interpretation [9] – albeit without weighting matters in favour of either.
For most pragmatic critics, the debate rests on the comparative weight to be placed on authorial biography, authorial intention, and the historical circumstances in which a work was produced. There is a significant difference between uncritical reliance on the author as “an indefinite source of significations” (to quote Michel Foucault [10]) and recognising the author as impacting our understanding of a work. This impact may manifest in a variety of ways: through relevant biographical details, for example, as in theorist Paul de Man's work with collaborationist Belgian newspaper Le Soir (identified by Sean Burke [11]).
“Whatever the attractions of that alternative locus of agency—words—to scholars who make their living from literary texts, authors and authorship have proven to be embarrassingly indispensable analytic resources.” So writes John Farrell, in his 2017 book The Varieties of Authorial Intention. Listing off those critics who challenged intentionalism - “Eliot, Lewis, the New Critics, Barthes, and Foucault” – Farrell argues that while their thinking was enormously impactful on literary scholarship, creating what he calls the “intellectual taboo” of intentionalism, their work had comparatively little impact on approaches to literary study [12]. This echoes Burke's argument that while The Death of the Author became “the centre of a controversy,” it did not become “the centre of a debate” [11]. Even its proponents were inconsistent when it came to method - Barbara Johnson notes that Barthes’ attempt to analyse Balzac from the perspective of a reader exhibits all the characteristics of an author-centric approach [12].
“Roland Barthes saw the ‘death of the author’ as a necessary condition for the ‘birth of the reader’,” writes Farrell [13], because:
The remainder of Farrell's book is devoted to validating authorial intention and the role of readers, challenging what he calls the textual fallacy – “the notion that the text is meaningful purely on its own”. In a work clearly indebted to Eric Hirsch, Farrell revises his earlier distinction between meaning and significance into meaning and impact. The statement Stalin is Dead carries (as an utterance in context) the same meaning; its impact is various. “To discover meaning, we look backward to the original scene of utterance; to discover impact, we look forward from that utterance as far as to the present day, often with the awareness of many intervening readers”. The orientation of analysis is reversed: from how readers act upon works to the way in which works acts upon readers. This recognition of readers whilst validating authorship represents a flavour of weak intentionalism, albeit one that places a greater emphasis on the author as extant historical entity.
Farrell goes on to identify three levels of authorial intentions: communicative, artistic, practical. Communicative intention describes “how authors expect the audience to understand the sentences, symbols, stories, and other features that make up a literary work.” Artistic intention describes “the authors’ attempts to provide a valuable reading experience by creating literary effects” – the particular affect the author intends to have on the reader, and the techniques deployed (or rejected) in doing so. Finally, practical intentions, which refer to the author's personal motivations to write and publish in a particular manner. While these categories may not on the surface cover suspicious hermeneutics (which reads a work sceptically to identify repressed or concealed meaning, as in psychoanalytic criticism), Farrell in fact brackets these approaches under impact. Part of the process of interpretation, after all, is deriving the self of the author.
One area Farrell does not explore is the impact of interactivity on his approach to intention. How effectively does Farrell's work map to the ways in which hypertext fiction brings intention into question? The remainder of this essay will consider Farrell's categories in the context of George Landow's chapter on Reconfiguring the Author.
Clearly the hypertext scholarship of the early 1990s – referencing an earlier stage of technological development – is unlikely to be in dialogue with a book written two and a half decades later. The intention here is to consider how effectively Farrell's arguments align with the divergent language around hypertext, a medium distinct from the linear print fiction that is the former's focus. This article still has significant currency – see its inclusion in Caroline Davis’ 2019 reader Print Cultures – and frames its argument around the erosion of authority (for the author) afforded by hypertext.
2 RECONFIGURING THE AUTHOR AND THE VARIETIES OF AUTHORIAL INTENTION
Reconfiguring the Author is the fourth chapter of Landow's Hypertext. Having outlined the relationship between hypertext and critical theory in his first chapter, he proceeded to outline the manner in which hypertext reconfigures fundamental concepts in literature. The chapter on authorship focusses on hypertext's undermining of the individual author's autonomy and authority through several mechanisms that transfer power (in certain ways) to the reader.
2.1 Navigation and Connection
The first method outlined by Landow is threefold: “the reader's ability to choose his or her way through the metatext, to annotate text written by others, and to create links between documents written by others” [4]. These three affordances are in reality quite different, though they all relate to a narrowing of the “phenomenological distance” between individual documents.
The first feature is most widely discussed across various domains [14, 15, 16, 17] and pertains to navigation and exploration. Readers of hypertext works possess some control over sequence, historically the preserve of the author in linear print media (absent paratextual elements and indexes).
The link is a unique expressive tool, however, one which authors can use to create distinct effects. The degree to which authors can express intention, writes Farrell, is “often correlated with formal complexity, and the more distinct units of composition—chapters, stanzas, scenes—a work has, the more intentionally concerted is the meaning”. The lexia and link introduce another suite of compositional tools that allow expression of intention through structure which linear media cannot afford. John G McDaid's We Knew The Glass Man provides a strictly linear path through its first two lexia, before the reader arrives at a node resplendent with links back and forth – one titled Nighttime in the Switching Yard after a song by Warren Zevon. This elegant synthesis of structuring logic and content expresses intention in a manner only possible in this form of network textuality.
In outlining his three modes of intention, Farrell defines artistic intention as “the authors’ attempts to provide a valuable reading experience by creating literary effects—to move, amuse, perplex, inspire, instruct, or infuriate the reader, using all means at hand—verbal skill, mastery of structure, imagery, metaphor, narrative forms and genres, or the flouting of any of these”. Hypertext permits the creation of a variety of effects – including perplexing or infuriating the reader – through mastery of structure and an intentional rejection of linear convention. “In all of these,” writes Farrell of general literary effects, “we can discern the author's desire to create a certain effect or set of effects and a belief in the efficacy of the means chosen, suggesting a rational fit between belief, desire, and action.” Hypertext presents similar opportunity for the expression of intention through effect, as outlined above.
Yellowlees-Douglas suggests that hypertext's multilinearity affords a level of indeterminacy “peculiar in extent and character” to interactive narratives [18]. While certainly the case (and fascinating to explore) this does not necessarily impact our understanding of intention. Making reference to Martin Heidegger, Farrell notes that “we interpret each detail of a work in the light of the whole, which we can only anticipate as we progress through it, and we interpret the whole in the light of each part”. This argument is familiar from wider discussions of indeterminacy in hypertext fiction, given that a single reading is unlikely to yield all content. “It is only through repeated readings,” writes Mark Bernstein, “by revisiting lexias under different contexts, that the fragments of text gradually coalesce, allowing the reader to assemble his or her own idea of the events of the story” [19]. Consider this too, from Michael Joyce [20]:
“The movement from part to whole and back,” argues Farrell, “is sometimes called ‘the hermeneutic circle,’ with the implication that it may never end. But it does end, at least for an individual reader at a particular time; it ends when the movement ceases to produce further understanding, when all the guesswork that the author has provided for the reader seems, for now, to be done.” This framing brings to mind Alex Mitchell and Kevin McGee's 2012 model for rereading interactive stories. This paper suggested that in interactive stories readers do not feel they are rereading, even when reading across multiple sessions and encountering similar content. Instead, they are pursuing an understanding of the story, after which they begin rereading reflectively to reinforce or challenge their now-discovered understanding of the story. By contrast, Silvio Gaggi argues that readers define the “textual boundaries” of the reading experience, in the knowledge that successive readings “may suggest different meanings” [21].
“The fact that some elements of the story are left indeterminate presents few mysteries,” writes Farrell. “No author could specify the world of a work in full detail, and none would want to.” That these answers may exist within the work doesn't particularly matter to a reader satisfied with the reading experience as it stands. Mikhail Bakhtin was perfectly comfortable with plot as a “service function” [22] to the open-ended exploration of ideas within a novel, ideas which he did not feel needed to be resolved within the work. Frank Kermode's The Genesis of Secrecy (which makes interpretation its subject) contrasts “vulgar notions of cause and closure” [23] against the superior virtues of indeterminacy. “On every level,” Farrell concludes, “the author's choices guide and constrain the reader to some degree, but that constraint may be the groundwork for calculated ambiguity, uncertainty, open-endedness, or even the simple presentation of words and phrases that do not make a statement”. All praiseworthy features of hypertext.
The second and third areas (annotation and the creation of links between documents) may be clustered as relating to the drawing of parallels and connections. While not addressing annotation directly, Farrell's work is steeped in commentary on context – how critics can arrive at diametrically opposed views of a work, for example, or the proper place of commentary (from an author or critic) in interpretation. Annotation and linking both function as a means of providing context, something Farrell considers fundamental to encountering authorial intention. “Literary works,” he writes,
The role of context for the reader is to close that gap, in the hope of being “able to get as near as possible to the author's intention”. It is for this reason that Farrell emphasised meaning and impact. “The information contained in the original utterance [meaning] is limited and fixed,” he continues, “however much differing points of view may affect our reactions to it and however much those reactions may change with time.” Commentary (i.e. annotation and links) therefore falls within one of two categories: providing supporting historical/social context, or providing alternate perspectives on the original work. These are both functions for which hypertext is well suited, and were of significant interest to Landow both from a theoretical [24] and practical standpoint (see Victorian Web). “Annotation,” notes Catherine Marshall [25], “covers a broad territory” whose topography is defined by the differing form, function, and role such annotations play.
This aspect of Farrell's argument (and Marshall's observation regarding the complexity and variety of annotations) also resolves the question of whether an anthology of Nietzsche should include marginalia originally included in his notebooks (a concern for Foucault [10]) or whether letters should be considered authored works - as Farrell explains, “letters become “authored” in a literary sense if we find it worthwhile to read them with literary interests in mind”. All this provides historical context useful in the pursuit of intention.
Greater distance between Landow and Farrell can be found in the latter's discussion of the literary work as complete in itself. A finished literary work still “has the character of a single utterance” for Farrell, limiting its potential to serve as a guide to its own meaning. Farrell contrasts this with a lecture, in which he can revise and “cancel” his observations as he goes. “Literary authors can, of course, comment on their works at a later time,” he continues, though such utterances tend to override the original intention. This argument, a product of thinking in terms of linear print, may be contrasted with Landow's observation on the difference between drafting his chapter for linear print vs hypertext. In the latter, he might be able to offer different paths or interpretations; in the former he is required to maintain the logic of linear argument. This offering of two simultaneous potential paths freezes the author at a point of divergence, permitting the reader to consider two potential directions and evaluate their affordances – even beyond hypertext's capacity to allow authors to later annotate or comment on their own work.
Novel or innovative approaches to structure and the potential to close the phenomenological gap between one work and another is not in itself a barrier to authorial intent or its emphasis. Textual autonomy, intertextuality, and degree of determinacy are, in Farrell's words, “artistic effects, three among many, and their importance must be determined work by work on an empirical and, indeed, historical basis”.
Before moving to Landow's second major argument, we may consider one brief aside from Farrell's work, which discusses the role of the editor in filmmaking. “When it comes to the communicative intentions of the film,” he writes, “the artist we are most primarily relying upon as we watch a film is the editor, though we may never think of her”.
The argument itself can be largely dismissed. As Walter Murch [26], champion of the film editor, wrote:
Farrell's argument, however, does introduces one area in which the reader gains some degree of autonomy from the author in hypertext. Kendall and Rety [27] described the reader's role as “an author organizing a final version from pre-existing rough drafts and notes,” voicing the complex entanglement of author/reader/editor function found hypertext.
2.2 Author as Text
Both hypertext and contemporary theory, wrote Landow, “agree in configuring the author of the text as a text”. This principle, derived from Barthes but making use of Foucault [10] and Lyotard [28] in his book, touches on several areas. In one sense it relates to Barthes’ notion of the readerly text. Such works are a weave of pre-existing meanings, drawn together by the author and recognisable by the reader. As per the earlier discussion of letters and marginalia, the frontiers of a book are never clear-cut: “it is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences: it is a node within a network” [29].
By extension, the author and reader are themselves primarily signifiers, the self “taking the form of a decentered (or centerless) network of codes that, on another level, also serves as a node within another centerless network” [4]. The historical idea of authors as “the actual historical agent causally and legally responsible for the text” [6] becomes entangled in a far more complex notion: that of the Author function. This approach separates the author as entity (in Nehamas’ sense) from the function or role they play. For Foucault, the notion of Author is useful primarily “to neutralize the contradictions that are found in a series of texts” [10] and neutralise discontinuities in interpretation. The Author operates as a construct, a discursive formation holding together a variety of notions and functions.
These arguments share a common feature, suggests Farrell: “the disenfranchisement of the person who speaks in favor of the medium—in other words, the promotion of langue [a system for conveying meaning] over parole [particular use of language]”. It is always language that speaks, runs the post-structuralist line, authors expressing ideas derived from wider contexts. “The trouble is,” Farrell concludes, “that langue does not exist without parole.” Parole for Farrell represents human activity, while langue is merely “a somewhat useful term for its analysis.” It is the individual speaker that grants words power through use in describing, explaining, and framing the world. More pithily, Farrell later summarises this view as follows: “we are assessing it [the work] as an action, not just as a structure of words”.
These principles are not so incompatible, however. It is possible to recognize the author as being the product of influences and forces beyond their awareness (and their connectedness to wider social processes) whilst simultaneously recognizing the labour of individual authors. As Marie Laure Ryan correctly notes, “if working one's way through the maze of an interactive text is suddenly called writing, we will need a new word for retrieving words from one's mind to encode meanings, and the difference with reading will remain” [30]. This parallels Farrell's own observation regarding the work as an intentional structure, “an utterance, its composition and publication being complex and significant human actions, and inside a work there are many more intentional structures, patterns of rational coherence attributed to imaginary agents which make their actions and statements intelligible”. Selection and specificity are conscious, intentional labour processes which warrant recognition in the process of interpretation.
Jorge Louis Borges's influential short story The Garden of Forking Paths is often invoked when discussing hypertext fiction. Farrell alludes to a different story – Borges's The Library of Babel – when discussing meaning: “It is the prodigality and abundance of the Library, ironically, that make it useless. These books could mean anything, and therefore they mean nothing” [13].
3 CONCLUSION
The remainder of Landow's original essay first explored the decentred self in more detail, before outlining his own compositional process - each an area that interacts only tangentially with Farrell's concerns, at least in the work as written. One brief section considers whether films can have intentions, since they are the result of collaboration between differently motivated agents. “Despite film's collective nature,” writes Farrell, “interpreting one still means attributing to it a unified intention on the communicative level.” Despite the variety of different roles in the filmmaking process, there remains a common intention. We might attribute the same logic to the co-authored work, in which the collective of individuals negotiates between themselves a meaning that is then discernible to the audience. The internal structure of such a configuration can still be antagonistic – the 1968 debates between Gore Vidal and William F Buckley Jr. were carried out on shared terms, for example, and their intention was clear - despite their political differences at the level of content.
Collaborative authorship might also be bracketed under Farrell's approach to the project. “Like the institutions to which they are often connected,” he writes, “projects are transindividual intentional structures defined by shared motives and goals that co-ordinate the actions of many agents, often over long stretches of time”. This description might apply both to the hypertext systems that co-ordinate such activity, and to the collective project of understanding hypertext (under, for example, Eastgate Systems) undertaken by different agents within the community.
Is there an author in this labyrinth? Of course there is. While presenting themselves differently, introducing new challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of intention, the author survives the transition to hypertext largely unscathed. Despite pioneering work by individuals like Jane Yellowlees Douglas, Robert Selig, and Jill Walker, however, close reading and similar intentionalist practices have a comparatively minor place in current hypertext scholarship. A substantial literature has developed implying that hypertext fiction is confusing, unwelcoming, unappealing - seeing these as structural flaws rather than intentional practices. Despite resurgent interest in hypertext fiction in various forms, there is not a commensurate rise in close readings of such works – and is unlikely to be, if the value of intention is not foregrounded. Even hostility to some aspect of the author's intention – or an approach founded in suspicious hermeneutics - proceeds from intention to a discussion of impact. Simultaneously hypertext's diffuse and networked nature has generated a challenging publishing environment, making it difficult to sustain communities of practice outside those supported by academic or other work. Greater scholarly attention to individual works and the intention behind their bespoke structures seems more likely to draw attention than metatextual analysis or abstractions on authorship.
“Books are written by people” note Mark Bernstein and Diane Greco [31]. This apparent truism can be masked by the complexities of the new media economy, in which creators drift from creations and the labour of authorship is forgotten. If new media economies are to place “renewed emphasis on forming a direct and durable connection between writer and reader” then part of that process must be the proper recognition of the author themselves. Alongside communicative and artistic intentions, Farrell places the practical intentions that motivate the composition of literary works. “Authors compose with various egoistic or idealistic ambitions in mind,” writes Farrell: “to impress others, give them pleasure, earn a living, gain status, sexual opportunities, the power to influence opinion, change the world, or keep the world the same.” And sometimes, of course, purely for the sake of it. These practical intentions, entwined with the industrial and economic processes that support them, also warrant closer scholarly attention.
REFERENCES
Douglas, J. Yellowlees. Is There a Reader in this Labyrinth? Notes on Reading a Hypertext Novella. In Computers and Writing: State of the Art. Eds. Patrik O'Brien Holt and Noel Williams. Oxford: Intellect Press
Wimsatt, W. K. and Monroe Beardsley. 1946. The Intentional Fallacy. The Sewanee Review (54, 3), 468–488.
Barthes, R. 1967. The Death of the Author. In: Image Music Text. Stephen Heath, trans. New York: Hill and Wang, 142-148
Landow, George P. 1997. Hypertext 2.0: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Douglas, J. Yellowlees. 2003. The end of books - or books without end? Reading interactive narratives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Nehamas, A. 1986. What an author is. The Journal of Philosophy 83(11), 685-91.
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. 1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hawthorn, J. Authority and the Death of the Author. In 2008. Donovan, S, Fjellestad, D, Lunden, R. (eds) Authority Matters. New York, NY: Rodopi, 65-88.
Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foucault, M. 1977. What is an author? In Language, Counter-memory, Practice, edited by Donald Bouchard, 113-38. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Burke, S. 1992. The Death and Return of the Author. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Johnson, B. 1985. The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press
Farrell, J. 2017. The Varieties of Authorial Intention. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan
Joyce, M. 1995. Nonce Upon Some Times: Rereading Hypertext Fiction. Modern Fiction Studies 43: 579-97.
Liestøl, G. 1994. "Wittgenstein, Genette, and the Reader's Narrative in Hypertext. In: Hyper/Text/Theory, George Landow (ed). Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press, 87-120.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2007. Electronic Literature: What is it? Electronic Literature. Accessed Feb 16, 2022. https://eliterature.org/pad/elp.html.
Mazzali-Lurati, S. 2007. Here is the author! Hyperlinks as constitutive rules of hypertextual communication. Semiotica 167 (1,4): 135-168
Douglas, J. Y.. 1994. How Do I Stop This Thing?: Closure and Indeterminacy in Interactive Narratives. In Hyper/Text/Theory, Landow (ed), George, 159-188. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bernstein, M. 2009. On hypertext narrative. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Torino, June 29-July 01 2009, 5-14, New York, NY: ACM.
Joyce, M. 1987. afternoon, a story. Watertown, MA: Eastgate Systems.
Gaggi, S. 1997 From Text To Hypertext: Decentering the Subject in Fiction, Film, the Visual Arts, and Electronic Media. The University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Michigan Press.
Kermode, F. 1979. The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Landow, G. 1987. Relationally Encoded Links and the Rhetoric of Hypertext." Hypertext '87 Proceedings. Association for Computing Machinery, pp.331-45
Marshall, C. 1998. Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Proceedings of the ninth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 40-49.
Murch, W. 1992. In the Blink of an Eye. 1995. Hollywood, CA:Silman-James Press.
Kendall, R. and Jean-Hughes Réty. 2000. Toward an Organic Hypertext. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM on Hypertext and Hypermedia, May 30-June 3 2000, San Antonio, TX, 161-170. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Lyotard, J. F. 1979. The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge, translated by Bennington, Geoff & Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Ryan, M L. 2003. Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bernstein, M. and Diane Greco. 2008. Designing A New Media Economy. Genre, 41(3/4), 59-82.
Mitchell, A. & Kevin McGee. 2012. The Paradox of Rereading in Hypertext Fiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Milwaukee, WI, June 25-28, 2012, 103–112. New York, NY: ACM.
Selig, R.L. 2000. The Endless Reading of Fiction: Stuart Moulthrop's Hypertext Novel Victory Garden. Contemporary Literature, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 642-59
Walker, J. 1999. Piecing together and tearing apart: finding the story in afternoon. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 111- 117
McDaid, John. We Knew the Glass Man. cream city review, 2019. http://io.creamcityreview.org/ 43-1/McDaid/WeKnewtheGlassManv1.1.html.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
HT '22, June 28–July 01, 2022, Barcelona, Spain
© 2022 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9233-4/22/07…$15.00.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3511095.3531285
Do you like what you are reading? Subscribe to receive updates.
Unsubscribe anytime