In this essay, contained in the book The World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory, Nancy Kaplan seems to be arguing that the current "literary crisis" regarding how hypertext and publication of documents on the World Wide Web are making people illiterate is not actually a crisis at all. In fact, she seems to be saying that this whole "crisis" is nothing more than the figment in the minds of some "academics." I find that I agree with Kaplan, for the most part, especially as she draws a difference between "literacy" as defined by the academic naysayers and "literacy" in a more general form.

I believe that the term "literacy" means that someone has the skills to communicate in a manner other than verbal exchanges. In other words, to be literate is to be able to communicate through words and images, both as a communicator and as a communicatee (which I know is not a real word, but I am going to use it anyway.) For myself, while I am reasonably literate when it comes to communication through text, I have difficulties when communicating with images. For some reason I have difficulty reading graphs and charts, struggle with computer icons, and so forth. My mind is not "literate" in terms of communication with images rather than text. This means that I am, frequently, left behind with new advances in computer software, as so much now is "image-enhanced" which means that I have to go looking for text-only versions. I have had similar experiences with some printed texts, though. (Oddly enough, the text that immediately comes to mind is an instruction manual for using a certain software program.) This text that I am referring to has thoughtfully provided the reader with "icons" that denote certain bits of information in the text. Unfortunately, I can never remember just what each icon stands for, and actually performed one of the "do not do this" tasks by mistake (thereby losing an essential file.) But I am somewhat off topic here – the point that I am trying to make (and that I feel Kaplan is also making) is that literacy can be defined in more than one manner.

Kaplan notes, on page 208, that "[i]n elementary schools, the phonics and whole-language partisans battle to control literacy education at its most basic level, though neither side has ever advanced any sound empirical evidence in support of its case." I think that this is an essential point that underlies Kaplan’s argument: the people who are arguing that hypertext is destroying literacy are seeing the issue in terms of straight black-and-white and are unwilling to consider the possibility that perhaps there are other options. In terms of phonics vs. whole-language education, I have heard many debates, primarily because my mother and my sister are both primary special education teachers. They seem to have come to the same conclusion that I have reached, which is the idea that perhaps both methods should be used in conjunction with each other, thereby eliminating the unavoidable problem that occurs when one deals in absolutes, which is that some people will be left behind. This is true with the new forms of literacy, too. Perhaps instead of arguing that critical thinking skills, which now seem to be the basis for determining whether or not someone is literate, are lost because of hypertext, it might be better to deal with the type of literacy that is developed as a result of someone being "literate" in hypertext.

Later in her essay, Kaplan writes "[y]et the stakes are high. They include the power to define what it means for a person to be literate, what it means to teach others to be literate, and what it means to distinguish a literate culture from its implied opposite, an illiterate culture." (page 210) Perhaps academics feel threatened because while they may currently be considered to be "literate" they might be left behind by the emerging form of literacy, which involves many different visual elements as opposed to plain text on a page. In fact, as our society moves further and further into the realm of using hypertext as a primary means of communication, these academics might foresee themselves becoming illiterate, and thereby losing any prestige that might currently be associated with their status.

I feel that, again like Kaplan, this reaction to "hypertextual literacy" is an issue of status and control. For if literacy is, in fact, simply an ability to communicate thoughts with others, in a manner other than verbal speech, and at a level that allows a person to be successful in the world, then all of these academics who are arguing that if someone is literate then they have read a specific book and believe the book means a certain thing, are, in fact out of a job. (Yes, I am carrying this to an absurd conclusion, but this is intentional: the "literacy is threatened" crowd are also drawing an absurd conclusion.) I believe that the definition of literacy is currently going through a change, but that the change is not necessarily a bad thing. During the Renaissance, someone was considered to be "literate" if they could read (and pontificate upon the meanings) of "the Classics" in their original languages. Today, even in stringent academic circles, this definition of literacy would be impossible to achieve, as literacy has evolved and now the emphasis is placed elsewhere. The current academic world needs to accept the fact that literacy is an ability to successfully communicate, learn, and teach, using whatever methods are most effective. Yes, their status is threatened, but that is their own fault. The movement toward hypertextual literacy is not going to stop just because some insecure, stodgy person feels that it should. Instead, hypertextual literacy will continue to evolve, and unless the academic world is willing to accept that fact and change some of its stances, then it will become outmoded and less useful.