my visual response is based on the hypertext definition which is a software system that links topics on the screen to related information and graphics, which are typically accessed by a point-and-click method. (source: dictionary). Similarly with what Steven said, “first work of true hypertext fiction: a branching path of overlapping narratives and detours that the reader navigated through the novel convention of clicking on textual links.”

As an illustration and my response, I was trying to understand why web developer, author started to use hypertext, how it works, and how it affects my knowledge, point of view because hypertext can be a hunch words linked to other link with different authors, publishing on different sites. So I started with the big on the right site, linked to obama, link to his history, works, people who worked with him, iran, nuclear, which before I read clicked to this article i already knew that its true that all of them are linked together but they have different contents. Surprisingly,obama himself become the a central mode of communication like what steven said about hypertext. He said,”it turned out to be a brilliant medium for bundling a collection of linear stories or arguments written by different people” Of course hypertext become a branching path to expand networks and readers exploring ideas, as network culture, but it can be the death of the authors. Hypertext created nonlinear writing, storytelling wheres there is no beginning and end. Which is sometimes can be ambiguous .

Given these points, I agree with Steven that nonlinear writing, story telling would not make hypertext less attractive. For example, as a student hypertext really help me to explore more information from different point of view, sites (different country), data, comparison, or similarities. Probably the only thing that I experienced with hypertext was unrelated links, false statement, or blog which is more like their own opinion without any further research. Indeed, “hypertext turned out to be a brilliant medium for bundling a collection liner stories or arguments written by different people” (steven johnson )

What role do “poets and philosophers” and other creative types have in the physical creation of the Internet?

I grew up reading the Choose Your Own Adventure Books (and inevitably always died with my first three choices, no matter what I did) and the world of hypertext storytelling Johnson talks about immediately evoked these books. However, as Johnson also goes on to point out, there are millions of Internet pages all connected by hyperlinks. The books I read were physical objects in the world (not just a bunch of tubes) limited to a finite number of words and pages. I like Johnson’s point however that while the type of story telling they envisioned did not pan out, mostly out of the mere impossibility of the logistics, he has optimism that of that conceit something better was created, and it relied on the tenacity of the “poets and philosophers.” And I have to agree that the way the hypertext exists now, as a connection between information, a way to build one’s wealth of knowledge in the shape of a constellation (to borrow Johnson’s word).

I also have to agree with his idea that creative people are just as needed as coders to build the infrastructure of the Internet. To make things like clicking a hyperlink possible, Internet needs the poets, the storytellers, the investigators, philosophers, artists, and creative. Because what good is a hyperlink that goes nowhere? What good is the Internet without the information and entertainment it provides? Is that not why it was created — to be able to be a network, like a spiders web, of interconnecting and cross-sectioning ideas? While Choose Your Own Adventure books are fun, they are limited and we ultimately can’t learn anything else from them. The internet does not have this problem; a symbiotic home to both the logical and illogical; infinite.

Would creating an online form to access information globally abolish/devalue careers in writing/ journalism?

I agree with a lot of the articles point about how Internet is the most prominent way of sharing information; and I agree that knowledge should be free and accessible to anyone. When Goldsmith starts going on about how publishing houses don’t make authors rich, I agree- to an extent. Publishing a book today definitely does not make someone rich, but if everything that was ever published becomes available on the web, writing as a career would be devalued considerably. This means that anyone can write anything. Who’s deciding if it’s a credible source? Who has time to sift through loads of articles to find real information?

The reason a book gets published is because that piece of work underwent intensive creating and editing in order to be chosen as a worthy piece of knowledge to publish and put into the world. If the world of blogs and books mix, there will be an information overload on the Internet, and people will either have trouble differentiating, or not care enough to differentiate. Making the Internet a primary source for information seems a little unstable. When I walk into Barnes & Noble and pick up a book, I can be assured that this book went through hell and back in order to be placed onto that table; making it a valuable, reliable source. If society gets used to posting a thought on the web and calling it knowledge, the entire concept of knowledge will be devalued.

In an ideal world everyone would use the Internet for searching information because of interest/ research, but unfortunately the Internet is often abused. I also am incredibly bias because I’m a Literary Studies major at Lang, so books are my friends.