There is something to both Steve's and James's post about working between a
hypertext/media and print diss.
Working on CMC (mainly hypertext) and changes in methods of
evaluation/assessment, I've been encouraged/discouraged to write the diss. as a
hypertext. One of the most interesting comments came from David Greetham who
works in textual studies. While encouraging me to do the diss. as a hypertext,
he reminded me that one of Jerome McGann's graduate students (yes I know the
possessive use here, and the sad thing is that I don't even know the grad.
students name, just who s/he "belongs" to) has argued that the most effective
means of evaluating hypertext is print.
That is, taking a printed text (say King Lear as Jude is doing) and making a
hypermedia project around it allows us to see the text in new and interesting
ways. In a similar manner, taking a hypertext document (say a webpage composed
by a group of students) and making a print-based project around it allows us to
see the webpage in new and interesting ways.
Both of these methods then create a sort of cross-media analysis. I'm not 100%
sure I buy this argument, but it seems worth thinking about. It suggests that
writing between media is not only the result of our historical moment (the
twilight of print and all that), but also an important tool for
discourse/textual analysis......
Carl
Carl Whithaus
Graduate Center, CUNY
John Jay College, CUNY and
Stevens Institute of Technology
>
* Message sent from Online2K - http://www.furman.edu/~jinman/cw2k/elists/
* Visit URL above to unsubscribe, read archives, and more!