One of the key words Hayles keeps talking about in her work is the term she coined “technotext”.
Technotext-
A basic summarization of this term would be a work that interrogates itself.
An example could be a movie that points out certain aspects of film not normally seen on a movie screen, such as a drop of water on the lense or the sound mic peeking out from the top screen.
Hayles states technotext in a book, such as her own book Writing Machines, makes one recognize certain aspects of writing one wouldn’t normally pay attention to. In her work bubbles are used, words that look like hyperlinks are used, and just the basic appearance of her book is glossy and unfamiliar. I think that the term technotext is used too narrowly in her work. Technotext is a work that interrogates itself. Well if one views a painting the brush strokes can reveal how the painting was created, what colors were used first, what brush was used. Well isn’t that interrogating the painting? One can see exactly what technology was used to create the painting, which isn’t really the purpose of the artist when creating the work, he/she paints for others viewing pleasure or to express an emotion or message.
This idea can also relate to architecture. Some architecture was specifically designed for appearance rather than function. This applies more to older examples of architecture such as chapels or palaces. If you see a sculpture carved into the building you might think of the artist’s part in the buildings creation and the message the sculpture sends. Let me explain more clearly. Some older sculptures attached to architecture would be the Chinese guard dogs carved into palace entries. They are carved into the palace to ward off unwanted guests. Well a message is read through the appearance of the dogs and you could ask who made the dogs? what are they made from? is there any material used specifically to aid in the dogs purpose? (certain stones are believed to have certain properties ex: onyx usually has protection properties).
Hayles Message
I think what Hayles is trying to say in her work is that people should not take books or technology for granted. They are both material. Both serve different functions and it depends on a person’s preference for either one when writing, but neither should be called useless or unimportant.
Books/Writing on Paper
They are usually paper, soft, bendable, easily transported, and have pages that are turned. They are fragile and can be ripped easily. They can also be reused over and over but they wear down.
Computers/Online posts
They are usually heavy, plastic, not easily transported, (but the works on computers can be sent to other computers quickly and easily). They break, contract viruses, and most of the ways computers work are unfamiliar to people (the coding, the hard drive, the various cords).
Why people might prefer typing over writing….. the works created on computers can be viewed by a massive amount of people within a click of a button (like the use of a blog or an online work). Typing on a computer can be easier, or at least I think so, all of the resources, such as a thesaurus, dictionary, or web reference, are at your fingertips to improve your writing (even spelling and grammar check). I find it is easier to work on a computer because when you are searching for a word or you can’t think of the right word to fit a sentence the computer thesaurus is available for my use.
Why people might prefer writing on paper to computers. There is nothing new to learn. Computer programs are always upgrading and changing. Writing with pen and paper hasn’t changed much over the years besides the colors that one may write on or with. For some typing on a computer is a challenge. People have to first learn how to type and then learn how to use programs, like word on a computer. The benefits of a computer however is that audio and visual components can be used, unlike a book (though I have seen some children’s books that make sounds when opened). Also an online book can link directly to books it may reference to help the reader get a clearer understanding of what the author is talking about.
There are a lot of reasons why one would prefer a book to an online source and vice versa, but what Hayles is trying to say is that one is not better than the other and everyone should consider the benefits of both. This argument is unlike Birkerts who believes that computer technology is destroying literature.
