Conclusion

35

I do not believe we need a “THEORY” of hyper-reading, even one that has a nice balance between speculation and pedagogy. This does not mean that we do not need to theorize hyper-reading. Quite the contrary. As Gail Hawisher suggested to me in her comments on an earlier draft of this essay, we need a praxis for hyper-reading. Relying on James Porter’s Internetworked Writing she writes:

I envision “praxis” as being somewhere between practice and theory—actually a thought-ful form of practice. Let me quote Porter here. He writes, “Praxis is more than a simple addition of or compromise between theory and practice; it represents a new kind of critical positioning. It is a practice, conscious of itself, that calls upon ‘prudential reasoning’ for the sake not only of production but for ‘right conduct’ as well. It is informed action, as well as politically and ethically conscious action that in its functioning overlaps practical and productive “knowledge.”

36

Hyper-reading, as I’ve characterized it, is an ongoing practice. To develop a theory of hyper-reading—meaning an integrated set of concepts that describe it—seems to me to be a trap. It would commit the persons with academic investments in the subject to an effort similar to the one both compositions and literary critics have made to articulate a “paradigm” of writing or reading.Paradigmatic theories no longer seem viable. One of the difficulties scholars of reading and writing face in their work that surfaced as a result of the explosion, of theories about these practices is that no theory emerged as the “victor.” This is indeed quite perplexing. Nor does there seem to be any convenient way to stop the flood of available theories unless one adopts the somewhat nihilistic view of postmodern thinkers like Baudrillard. Yet alternatives to such nihilism can be sought.

37

There seems to be an emerging-network of teachers and scholars who work in educational electronic environments. They have been trained in both literal true and composition programs and share with each other an interest in the technologies of reading and writing as teachers. Thus, persons interested in hyper-reading (or the reading/writing process for that matter) might find solace in pedagogical praxis. We could focus our energies on teaching others how to be hyper-readers. This can be done without recourse to a “general field theory” of hyper-reading since it only commits us to “thoughtfully’’ showing others how we do what we do. The test of our teaching practices would simply be whether our students could learn to hyper-read in the ways we do but as a, “politically and ethically conscious action.” Such an endeavor would change as the technology changes but this is a situation already familiar to any hyper-reader. Yet this tactic leaves a huge question open. Why hyper-read? The answer to this question is tied to another—what work are you doing? Doing one’s work well, I believe, involves the praxis Porter advocates but does not require a generalized filed theory of an institutionalized subject matter.

38

I began this essay with an anecdote about a colleague who found reading from his computer screen to be a disagreeable experience and preferred to read printed materials. Though this essay has focused on what can be accomplished by the hyper-reading we already do (however reluctantly), I do not believe that the constructive hyper-reading experiences I have described will displace reading print. Nor do I believe they will replace the more structured reading we do of hypertexts designed to make context specific information available to us. I am inclined to predict that the sort of enjoyment I experience in hyper-reading will become common. The pleasure of reading is often associated with aesthetic experiences—the look and feel of a well made book, the comfort of a favorite chair, the crackle of a fire on a winter night as one reads a novel. Such aesthetic dimensions are not yet easily available in computer assisted reading. However, I notice some striking (though local) changes in the reading practices of at least one of my colleagues that make me confident in my prediction. Five or six years ago, I sat in my favorite reading chair in my book lined study comfortably reading from my portable computer. My friends and family were amazed. This winter I notice that my wife now often reads her own writing in bed while revising on her Thinkpad whose “awakening music” she just loves.