Home
My
Mates Assignments Last
Comments?
Conclusion
- a point to note
To conclude, then, I agree that hypertext in general is indeed a good embodiment of the writerly text. But I think it would be wise not to get too carried away and over-extend the argument to every hypertextual document in existence. Although it is true that there are multiple meanings possible in hypertext, it should not be taken to mean that every minute discrepancy between the reading processes of two readers constitutes a whole different meaning. Paul Ricoeur's view of phenomenological hermeneutics stresses that meaning is a' world produced in front of the text by the convergence of the textual world and the reader's world' (Ricoeur Reader, 495). If taken too literally, this means that a microscopic difference between the 'worlds' of two readers might constitute a 'different meaning'. What I feel is that it is inevitable, even in a linear print text, that different readers will not have the exact same ‘world' projected in front of the text’. They do not bring the same predispositions to a text. Thus they will always take with them a slightly different mental picture or understanding. Does this mean that every single text resembles the writerly text? Obviously not, I guess. So, my view is that unless two readers gather a significantly different meaning, minor variations shouldn’t be blown out of proportion. There can be room for the slightest discrepancies, and the word ‘different’ shouldn’t be taken too literally. For hypertext, it is true that the reader is always an active participant, but not all hypertextual documents may be able to produce that inexhaustible number of significantly different meanings.
*** END ***