From here I began thinking about eye-witness accounts and how several people can see one event but when asked about it later there accounts can be extremely different. It seems strange that the eye-witnesses all saw the same thing, yet what their brain chooses to take notice of and even how accurate their memory is, can be so different. I also read about how eye-witnesses can be very easily swayed in their account of what happened by different wording of the question posed about what they saw. It makes me wonder about the reliability of memory and whether we can ever really trust our memory as an accurate device to recall from.

Intuition and mystery sparked some interest in me because as a university student we are taught to draw conclusions from evidence and to be able to back up any claims we might make. The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to draw conclusions from only a “gut feeling” is something which I would enjoy, as the conclusions come from the self rather than parroting the views of others. I am looking forward to researching and drawing conclusions in this way for our final project. I also liked the way that Halflife encouraged fluid conclusions. It makes an effort to demonstrate the ongoing nature of research and how with an added piece of information, a previous conclusion could change to something totally different.

Herstory is another concept which I find interesting. As a sociology student I have reinforced my feminist views through my learning and believe that it is important that females have equal opportunities in all aspects of the world. Herstory and the idea of re-writing history to include and highlight the role of females is one which I feel is extremely important.

At school we had a maths task centre, a room full of boxes containing maths problems. As well as the problem the boxes also contained tangible objects which served to help solve the question. I remember being excited to use the room, despite my lack of interest in maths, as the objects within the boxes were an element of fun not usually associated with the subject.

In my previous job as a swimming teacher I found that students were much more enthusiastic and attentive if I had a creative way of describing a drill. Being a coloured pencil was definitely more exciting to them than just holding their arms above their head and doing a torpedo. Although swimming is not the same as scholarly learning, it is learning none the less and I believe that adding an element of fun into the process is a great help in learning and retaining the information.

I think Hayman saw through this revolutionary and creative aspect when he claimed that the reader becomes a “necessary and active, if sometimes unwilling, presence”. Print is a linear medium, but by writing texts which require a reader to accumulate knowledge through multiple re-readings there is straying from that linear path.

The second reading discussed that authors who write in this way are sustaining and not completing the creative act. It seems to be almost like a writer of a one-hit-wonder who refuses to believe that they are a washed up star. Personally I crave closure. I don’t like open-ended movies, nor do I like books which leave the reader to make up their own mind. Texts which are not finished and are infinite infuriate me. I agree with the reading when it states that texts like this demand that there is a devotion to them so much so that life is almost forgotten in the process of understanding.

Grusin spoke of “reconfiguring the authorial self” in relation to electronic writing. I like how electronic writing and hypertext is moving away from the author, what the author meant and how the authors opinion is right. The light is now being shined upon the reader and the readers opinions, rather than leaving them in the shadows of the author.

Grusin also noted that “hypertext is changing the cultural status of writing as well as the method of producing books”. Here is another example of electronic text moving the status quo. Hypertext is changing who can publish, as well as how it is written, and the way in which it is published. Publishing and writing a book was once reserved for the elite and the educated. Only subjects which were deemed worthy would be bound into a book and sold. Electronic writing and the internet allows anyone to be a ‘published’ author, regardless of the content and regardless of who they are, where they’ve been and what they’ve done. Publishing online costs significantly less and there is no need for a publisher to approve what is being written.

As with ‘The Electronic Labyrinth’, Grusin speaks of hypertext and electronic writing as being “remarkable” and its influenced change on writing in the 21st Century.

Personally I feel hypertext caters for the easily distracted brain of our time. We are being conditioned by the medias short, sharp bursts and as a result become bored easily. Television is teaching children to concentrate for a short amount of time and only because of the highly stimulating nature of what is being viewed. I feel that hypertext is merely continuing this trend as a document is left abandoned whilst the concentration of the reader is occupied by some other tangent.

I do understand that hypertext allows for information and ideas to be linked in a way which might never become apparent if the individual were manually searching. Despite my cynical view of hypertext perpetuating a lack of concentration I am still able to see the amazing power which hypertext holds and believe that it is a tool which has and still will change how individuals obtain knowledge.

On a side note, although not discussed as a main area of the reading the lecture talked about memory and how writing changed how our memory operated. I find it a little sad that we have lost some of our previous ways of remembering, such as rhythm and song, in the place of writing and literate culture.