Maud [1] has spent months reading and re-reading "In Small and Large Pieces" (Cramer 1993). After much contemplation, close reading and consideration of current hypertext and cybertext theory, she finally constructs a work of criticism based on her study. She feels confident as she finishes up her presentation at a Hypertext conference. Smiling to herself over the fact that there weren't any major flubs or technical problems during her presentation, she calls on the first hand that raises. "You provide an interesting analysis. I was just wondering, however, how do you fit the rape scene into your perspective?" Rape scene?! Maud racks her memory. Was there actually a rape scene? In all the time that she spent with the text, she honestly cannot recall having encountered such a scene. She feels the eyes of the audience upon her, waiting for a reply. Should she actually admit that she has never read this part of the text?
For Roland, having not read the rape of Rose by her father's knights (Coover 1996: 34) would be the scholarly equivalent of an inexcusable sin. The scene may not have figured into his discussion of the work because, as Griffith (2002: 182) informs students learning to write literary criticism, "no single reading, however careful, can take in all the elements of most works". Yet, we expect a certain level of academic rigor from our scholars, and one of the unwritten rules is that a scholar should read the complete text that he or she is analyzing.
With hypertext, however, this is not an easy task. When readers pick up a disk or access a Web-based story, they have no idea of the length of the story (how much text material exists). In addition, as readers traverse a hypertext, they often have very little idea where they are in relation to the whole text.
With some hypertext systems, there are ways that readers can minimize the possibility of unread pathways. Eastgate hypertexts, for example, inform the reader while the text is loading how many nodes constitute the hypertext. A concerned reader could keep a tally of how many spaces have been read. Yet, this is an imperfect system since it is not uncommon for hypertext writers using Eastgate's Storyspace to use blank nodes as a way to group and organize the content. For example, Joyce's (1987) afternoon contains three blank nodes ("backlink", "bad fiction" and "Untitled").
Another way that the system or the author can minimize the possibility of readers missing content is by providing a site map. On the Web and in Eastgate Hypertexts, many authors provide a site map as a way of providing a graphical representation of the content. As Bly (1997: "Direct4") instructs us, readers can "surf the map" to see if they have missed anything. Site maps are useful in helping readers determine where they are and the path necessary to get to where they might want to go, but none (to my knowledge) provide readers with an idea of where they have been or which areas have not yet been visited.
At the same time that authors are providing means for readers to determine and access unread portions of the text, they are also finding ways to hide text. In afternoon (Joyce 1987) there is a little known space entitled "Jung". This space has no links into or out of it. In fact, the only way to get to it is through opening the hypertext with a full version of Storyspace and specifically selecting the "Jung" space. Even though this space is part of the complete text, it is hidden from most readers.
When I mentioned the concern of unread spaces at the 2001 Hypertext Doctoral Consortium, David Kolb suggested that a critic should hack into the program (that is, open the hypertext in another program so that the critic has access to all of the lexia without having to follow the links). Clearly, we could state that Maud should have done so with "In Small and Large Pieces" before presenting. Had she done so, it is possible that she wouldn't have bypassed those lexia containing the rape scene. Yet, this is only a possibility because "In Small and Large Pieces" is an Eastgate hypertext and may be opened with a full version of Storyspace. If it had existed as a Web hypertext, however, hacking into it in order to find unread spaces may have been difficult if not illegal. While such hacking is useful, if it becomes a requirement we may exclude a fair number of works that exist in systems that cannot be hacked into, as well as a fair number of interpretations from scholars who lack the expertise or equipment to hack into works.
As hypertext technology progresses, it becomes more and more likely that scholars will have to address the possibility of unread lexia. During the 2001 Writers' Workshop, Markku Eskelinen suggested links that were temporally based and guard fields that resulted in radically different versions of the text (the example discussed at the time was a text based upon the Clinton presidency. If a reader clicked on the sex-scandal, it would close off for that reader all of the less salacious material). Eskelinen (2001) further suggests cybertexts where one reader's reading of a text could change that text or even other texts for different readers as well: "In this scenario the way I read and use my Hegirascope could affect someone else's options to read Reagan Library, or these works might assimilate and annihilate each other." Such options would create much more dynamic texts that truly could change every time they are read. As a result, the possibility of unread material becomes that much more probable.
As scholars and critics, we are going to have to address exactly what we expect from scholarship of individual hypertext works. Can we still hold out the possibility of being "true to the text"? If not, to what can a scholar be true? What standards can we use to separate solid criticism from schlocky criticism? Many of the old concepts of what it means to do criticism will be challenged by and changed to address new types of texts, and the standards by which we judge academic rigor will need to change in the process.
Coover, R. (1996) Briar Rose (New York: Grove)
Cramer, K. (1993) "In Small & Large Pieces". Eastgate Quarterly Review of Hypertexts, 1(2)
Eskelinen, M. (2001) "Cybertext Theory and Literary Studies, A User's Manual". ebr, 12 http://www.altx.com/ebr/ebr12/eskel.htm
Griffith, K. (2002) Writing Essays about Literature: A Guide and Style Sheet, 6th edition (Fort Worth: Harcourt)