After hyper
By Cícero Inácio da Silva*

George Landow is a pioneer in the critic of texts in known electronic supports, such as hypertext or hypermedia. His first articles and books on this subject date from the 80’s, and are of great importance as a reflection on the writing and reception with the use of digital technologies.

Landow discusses the effects of the electronic media on the literary creation, dialoguing with authors such as Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Paul de Man, and Michel Foucault, among others. This places him in a different position as the one deals which, for instance, on issues such as “the end of books” through the prophetic and “futurologic” view which has assailed great part of the critics regarding the use of the new technology.

Currently, George Landow teaches English and History of Art at Brown University, in Providence, in the U.S. He has an extensive list of publications, among which we highlight the following books: “Hypermedia and literary studies” (MIT, 1991), and “Word: text-based computing in the humanities” (MIT, 1993), both product of a partnership with Paul Delany, “Hypertext: the convergence of the contemporary critical theory and technology” (Johns Hopkins UP, 1992), “Hypertext in Hypertext” (Johns Hopkins UP, 1994), a study that was later expanded and subsequently published as “Hypertext 2.0” (Johns Hopkins UP, 1997) and Hypertext 3.0 (Johns Hopkins UP, 2006).

In addition, Landow is the editor of “Hyper/text/theory” (Johns Hopkins UP, 1994), a collection of critical texts by Gregory Ulmer, Espen Aarseth, among others.
Although he is a reference in his field, none of his books has been translated in Brazil. A possible explanation for this gap could be his critical posture, not easily affected by the “transformations” offered/caused by the “technological” era.
In an interview he talks about hypertextuality, his work, and, above all, the contemporaneous reception of the text.

CIS: In your book Hypertext 2.0, you defended the non-distinction between the Hypermedia and the Hypertext. Do you still feel this way?

Landow: Computer text— whether hypertext or not — easily includes images as well as alphanumeric text, since computers store both words and images as code.

Linking such text or text and image combinations together is already both hypertext (and hypermedia).

I don't see how distinguishing between the two makes much sense. On the other hand, we should distinguish between hypertext and animated text, such we see created by Flash or Director.

CIS: In a way, the hypermedia is currently seen as another tool that allows for the filing and thematic relationship between concepts (Ex.: Derrida in Papier Machine), rather than an actual language. How do you view the relationship between technology and writing? How do you view the issue of the machine? Can a machine write? Or is the writing itself already a machine?

Landow: I see writing as one of the first and most important human technologies, and each set of writing tools — stylus and clay, pen and parchment, chisel and stone, print and paper, computer keyboard and screen — affects reading,writing, and our conceptions of them.

Reading and writing are ALWAYS material even if computer text itself is a matter of code and virtual. We create and perceive in it very specific physical settings and by very specific physical practices.

CIS: The hypertext and the hypermedia used to be advertised in the networks (www) as a step towards the democratization of information; almost as the end of the logic of knowledge as a property. What we see today is somehow different...

Landow: Yes and no. Weblogs (Blogs) show us high quality technical and scholarly information created by large numbers of people outside academic institutions, and much information about medical conditions, medicine, and academic topics are freely available on the WWW, thus dramatically democratizing SOME information.

The fact that hypermedia tends to be more democratizing than print does not mean that it automatically creates political democracy or even a more democratized educational system -- in the case of the latter teachers must open themselves tot he possibilities of student-centered educational practice and new modes of teaching.

CIS: Considering the possibility of all subjects in the world becoming "authors", and, therefore, becoming also editors, how do you view the issue of the credibility of the "democratized" information and the apportioning of this ephemeral authorship?

Landow: I don't see that the problem is made all that much worse by the internet: large libraries always have had large quantities of poor quality or very flawed works.
I think we shall develop several classes or levels of authentication depending upon the needs of the reader.

Groups of scholars, scientists, technicians, and those with discipline knowledge will give a first stamp of approval for works published online, or the value of works will be gauged by identified reviewers.

For many years now, scientists working in High Energy Physics have posted their works on the WWW before they appear in print.
Many physicists have told me that they only consult these unvetted pre-print electronic versions of papers because they themselves can figure out if an essay, theory, or experiment seems worthwhile reading.
Similarly, many people consult online film evaluations and other hobby and leisure information that is far more democratically created than print versions.

* He was a Visiting Scholar at Brown University (Spring Term 2005) with a Fellowship supported by the Foundation for the Coordination of Higher Education and Graduate Training (CAPES/MEC/Brazil). Professor at Faculdade Belas Artes de S�o Paulo (Brazil)

Text published in the FILE Symposium book. São Paulo, IMESP/FILE, 2005.
ISBN 85-89730-03-4.