The Harmless Yank Hobby

[jbor at bigpond.com]

>> I think it's fair enough to note that the types of references and
>> allusions used in literary texts are similar to hyperlinks on the 
>> Internet. I can't
>> see any problem with that at all. They've both been placed into a 
>> text by an
>> author for a reader to follow (or not).

On 14/06/2006:

> The difference, and it's a lot, is the active role and legwork of the
> literate reader in the one case, and provided link and reference in 
> the other.
>
> One needs but think of Nabokov to grasp the the difference.  Nabokov 
> meant
> his numerous allusions to function as a game, a treasure hunt for the 
> alert and
> curious reader, the discover a reward.  Nothing at all like a 
> hyperlink.

Once discovered and revealed, however, even Nabokov's allusions could 
be translated into a hyperlink. For example, a "click" onto the title 
of Pale Fire might "take you" straight to Timon of Athens IV iii. I 
agree that it would destroy some of the object (and a lot of the joy) 
of Nabokov's texts, but not all authors use or view references and 
allusions in the same way Nabokov did.

Many literary references are very overt and straightforward. Think of 
Prufrock, or Pynchon's lead to Ishmael Reed in GR. Many aren't, of 
course. But the way they operate is comparable to a hyperlink. I'd 
argue that something like Steven Moore's Reader's Guide to The 
Recognitions, or the various book and web guides to Pynchon's novels, 
do serve much the same function and purpose as hyperlinks on the 
Internet.

The crucial distinction is between what's actually an aspect or 
attribute of the text (a reference, or hyperlink), and what isn't (some 
reader's personal digression, or googlefest). The latter doesn't 
automatically become the former just by its documentation.

best