The name of the text that I will be critically evaluating is Storyland, a digital text that can be found in the Electronic Text Archive. After reading this text and reading both criticism for and against such texts, I believe that electronic texts like Storyland, which defy what can be seen as normal and traditional literature, still are legitimate pieces of writing and should be recognized as such. Although there is definitely much question about the legitimacy of electronic texts in comparison to traditional classic works, there are still those who insist that the coming of a new age of technology includes the transference of printed books to hypertext. One of these supporters is Katherine Hayles, who encourages the crossing of this boundary on page 45 of her book Writing Machines. She says she was,
“less interested in reinforcing boundaries [...] than in seeing what happened if you romp over them, which second generation works were exuberantly doing as they moved toward mutlimedia, creating works that contained components drawn from literature , visual arts, computer games, and programming practices.” (pg. 45).
An opposition to this argument can be seen in Sven Birkerts book, The Gutenberg Elegies. He explains throughout his book the history tied to printed books and the transitory nature of electronic text. Therefore a counter argument can be seen when Birkerts talks about the history of print and how much is can affect a person individually. He says,
“To embrace the microchip and all its magic would be to close myself off from a great many habits and attitudes, ones that define me to myself; I would have to reposition myself on the space-time axis. I would have to say good-bye to a certain way of looking at the world because that way is bound up with a set of assumptions about history and distance, and difficulty and solitude and the slow work of self-making- all of which go against the premises of instantaneousness, interactivity, sensory stimulation and ease that make the world of Wired attractive to so many.” (pg. 213)
This is one opposition statement from Birkerts which I could anticipate.
