Why Hypertext Criticism?
Richard E. Higgason
Blue River Community College, Blue Springs, Missouri, USA
Email: rich.higgason@kcmetro.edu
Web
site: http://www.kcmetro.edu/blueriver/humanities/english/higgason
Key features: References; Author
Details
Greco (2002) recorded four "easy" steps to hypertext
criticism:
-
Bash George Landow
-
Bash Eastgate
-
Promote your own work and that of your friends
-
Approvingly cite as many famous people as you can, so your name is forever
associated with theirs.
Granted, Greco later recorded that she was "pissed
off" when she wrote these rules. Upset or not, we have to ask if this is
not what hypertext criticism (if
not literary criticism in general) has come to: bash others while shamelessly
promoting self. This isn't, however, the first time that criticism has
been disparaged. In the early nineteenth century, it was not uncommon to
view criticism as a "parasite" to art, something that drained "away its
lifeblood" (Davis and Schleifer 1993 p. 20). Arnold
(1865) records Wordsworth as having held "'the critical power very
low, infinitely lower than the inventive [. . .] if the quantity of time
consumed in writing critiques on the works of others were given to original
composition, of whatever kind it might be, it would be much better employed;
[. . .] it would do infinitely less mischief". When readers feel the freedom
to speak their minds, criticism has the power to upset others. In fact,
it is almost inevitable that criticism will upset at least someone. There
will be at least one other person who feels that the critic missed the
mark or that he or she was too harsh or too complimentary. Umberto Eco's
early work focused on the role of the reader (see, for example, Eco
1984). After publishing his own work of fiction (The Name of the
Rose) and seeing the criticism that emerged, he focused more on the
limits of interpretation (see, for example, Eco 1992).
Is it possible that, when looking at what is actually produced, criticism
tends to do more harm than good? Is criticism simply parasitic and thus
more capable of "mischief" rather than aiding a work?
At a time when we are questioning the lack of critical attention given
to hypertext works, we have to ask if we really want more.
Are we better off without it?
What is to be gained with
hypertext criticism?
References
Arnold, M. (1865) "The Function of Criticism at the
Present Time". University of Toronto Libraries, 1996
http://ww.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/criticism/funct_il.html
Davis, R. C. and Schleifer, R. (1994) "What is Criticism".
In Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies,
3rd edition (New York: Longman), pp.17-26
Eco, U. (1992) Interpretation and Overinterpretation,
edited by Collini, S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Eco, U. (1984) Role of the Reader: Explorations
in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press)
Greco, D. (2002) "Hypertext criticism in four easy
steps". Talk is Cheap. Say it with Meatloaf, 23 April
http://home.earthlink.net/~dianegreco/west.html