Hypertext: The Reality -- Are We Seeing a Paradigm Shift?

Although hypertext has allowed a more writerly path of reading, McHoul and Roe argue that Landow has been too hasty in hailing hypertext as the “ideal text”. According to them, there is a foundational mistake in the pro-hypertext position, in which a relational binary is taken as an absolute binary. They bring up Landow’s dreams of his readers’ reaction, where even if they could not change the text, they could choose to write a response and link it to his document, or choose their own reading paths. This is taken by McHoul and Roe as readerly, for the conditions of “freedom” are still set by the writer. Freedom is but limited.

With regards to the availability of a new writing tool, it is regrettable that "the significance of links within a hypertextual environment is often underestimated; the textual points or nodes are taken as givens and the links are regarded simply as matters of preference or convenience. Their ease of use makes them appear to be merely shortcuts. They are seen as subservient to the important things: the information sources that they make available. Their speed in taking a user from one point to another makes the moment of transition too fleeting to be an object of reflection itself; the link-event becomes invisible" (Burbules, 104). Authors in the new writing age have not grasped the importance of links, and how they can be used productively to generate meaning, rather than performing the role of shortcuts.