>The 90’s were a time in which there was more critique written about hypertexts than literary hypertexts.
> A hypothesis was made, a few hypertexts were produced, but before the experiment yielded significant results the hypothesis was validated, which derailed the field for a decade.
I think this assertion might not be supported by the evidence. Yes, there exists a substantial secondary literature on hypertext, but there even in the early ’90s, there were many hypertexts one could read and study.
In any case, criticism *typically* proceeds through widespread discussion of some widely known work. A great deal has also been written, for example, about Impressionism in painting. The movement itself occupied perhaps a few dozen painters for a period of a decade or two; a less expansive definition would say that in involved no more than thirty artists over the course of no more than twelve years. Hundreds of critics and historians have subsequently written about Impressionism.
Your conclusion is flatly wrong, in my opinion, and tendentious; you don’t specify what expectations you mean, or in what sense the theory did not “survive” these expectations.]]>
[…] A few weeks ago, I wrote about some work on digital narratives in Spanish. What I failed to mention is that at least one of these groups allows English submissions. So, let me invite you all readers to participate and submit academic papers to the the Congresss. Here’s the announcement. […]]]>
About the Madrid conference, which I attended, I couldn’t agree more with Mark. It is a renaissance of scholar activity in this area. I would not dare to call it again “hypertext”, since this term was abused to the point in which everybody was writing about it without experimental support. The 90’s were a time in which there was more critique written about hypertexts than literary hypertexts. Many promises about the media were made that could not possibly be fulfilled. Now we have learned more about a media that is massively used. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is built, an experiment is conducted and finally the hypothesis is adjusted with the results of the experiment. This process did not happen with early hypertexts. A hypothesis was made, a few hypertexts were produced, but before the experiment yielded significant results the hypothesis was validated, which derailed the field for a decade. Nevertheless, digital narrative is a real possibility; text in produced and consumed in digital media; people is reading and writing at an unprecedented rate; reading and writing fiction still raises interest. Hypertext might be dead, in the sense that classic hypertext theory did not survive the expectations it created, but digital narrative is alive and gaining ground.]]>