In the lengthy (and linear) tome, ‘Books without Pages’, Douglas makes a point about how the modern manifestation of hypertext mirrors preceding literary theory. Derrida’s definition, for example, declares that a text is “a differential network, a fabric of traces, overrunning all the limits set to it so far” – in this, as Douglas points out, it is not hard to see the beginnings of hypertext as a theoretical possibility. Barthes’ ‘Death of the Author’ is a phrase that might be found very literally in a place without consistent authorial presence – like a hypertext narrative for example.

“Print mostly works in much the same way as a legal decision: a zero-sum game that settles the conflicting claims and elaborate narratives constructed by each side with a single decision, inevitably validating one version of events entirely while suppressing the other”.

– Douglas

I think this is a wonderful observation but don’t see any inherent superiority in a “choose-your-own-adventure” novel, where the author exists at the margins of the readers will, and a classic narrative structure. I think video-games, like that hypertextual masterpiece, ‘Skyrim’, fill the space of self-determination more than adequately. Forcing written narrative to take on computer-logic and aesthetics, simply because it’s available, seems to me to defeat the purpose of reading altogether. I rely on authors, masters of their craft, to illuminate themes through narrative as best they see fit. Could I decide on a better ending to ‘Moby Dick’, ‘The Count of Monte Christo’, or ‘MacBeth’? I doubt it. Could I tell those stories any better if left to my own devices? And so, in contrarian, luddite fashion, I say to hell with written, hypertextual narrative. The great works in the English language, show uncompromised authorial intention. To use modern examples, McArthy’s ‘Blood Meridian’, Foster-Wallace’s ‘Infinite Jest’, Vonnegut’s ‘Slaughterhouse 5’, (the first hypertextual-non-hypertextual novel?) or even a comedy classic like ‘A Confederacy of Dunces’, or sci-fi genius like Atwood’s ‘Oryx and Crake’, did not come about by asking the audience what they think should happen. If I may rant a little further… People don’t know what they want. This is what writers are for. The best writers don’t need our help and it is foolish to think that everyone knows best how a story should go. They don’t. When focus groups and lowest common denominator are allowed to dictate, you get modern Hollywood, an institution that produces about ten good films a year out of hundreds, and then almost purely by accident. The reason for those films are great writers, people who know what they’re doing and don’t ask me how they think a story should end.

Mishell Hernandez also speaks – http://www.mediafactory.org.au/mishell-hernandez/