Comparing the number and kinds of reviews of hypertext and electronic literature to mainstream criticism and reviews misses a wide ocean--economic incentives. In simplistic terms, mainstream writers publish through publishing houses, which sell books. Reviews, critiques and basic mainstream media attention to works depend on an economic model--the more attention, the more books sold. The more books sold, the more profit for publishing houses, who can then go on to promote and sell more books.
Hypertexts haven't quite caught on in this economic and cultural merry-go-round. We still don't have a business model. Most electronic works are now presented on the Web where readers with the right kinds of machines can access them for free. Micropayments, subscriptions and other payment models haven't really paid out. So there isn't a real revenue stream to attract mainstream reviews and media attention. What are the economic driving forces for hypertext/new media/electronic literature? Where are the market incentives?
Do we need an economic model for hypertext readers, writers, critics
and reviewers? We have gotten pretty far without one--judging from the
number and quality of electronic journals on the Web (Iowa
Review, Beehive,
Riding the Meridian,
Cauldron and the Net,
Poems that Go--there
are so many I cannot hope to give the proper recognition and applause here).
We have communities like trAce, directories
from the Electronic Literature Organization and the Electronic
Poetry Center. All these are run by fantastic people dedicated to the
vision and the possibilities inherent in the medium. Yet these efforts
represent a capital investment
of time, machinery and costs that demand an incredible amount of personal
sacrifice. Each of these represent lives dedicated to promoting electronic
literature and art. How long can we continue to demand this high price?
Or is that precisely what art and literature have demanded all along?