Power shifts between reader and author in digital texts

Bernhardt’s discussion of digital texts seemed a bit dated at times—for instance, his inability to see digital texts as something we can take with us, like a book. That said, Bernhardt’s description of what can and cannot be done with digital texts provoked me to ask a question: Do readers have less power with digital texts?

The author seems to have much more power in Bernhardt’s mind. Three of Bernhardt’s “dimensions of variation” (410) in the differences between print and digital text seem to give the author more power. The texts being “spacious,” “graphically rich” and “customizable and publishable” all seem to give authors more ability to craft a text as they choose. Other variations seem to empower the reader in digital texts, but I don’t know if I buy it.

For instance, consider the idea of “interaction.” While being able to interact with the text seems to give the reader more opportunities, Berhardt’s language shows another side: “However, writers of print material cannot force the interaction, they can only invite it” (413, emphasis in original). Here, we see that, while interactive texts may give readers an opportunity to interact with the text, to a greater extent, this type of digital text actually allows the author to force interaction, which gives, again, more power to the author.

Similarly, Bernhardt notes that digital texts can be “functionally mapped,” meaning they have symbols that tell readers how the text can be used, and that they can be “navigable,” meaning readers can quickly find information. But, we encounter issues here that may also draw power away from the readers. First, the whole idea that the text is “functionally mapped” belies the fact that this is necessary simply because the reader is being placed in an uncomfortable position in the digital environment. Bernhardt addresses this indirectly, noting that “users of computer systems are often handicapped by not having useful, productive strategies for approaching computer-based text” (420).

Digital texts are well suited for nonlinear texts, Bernhardt argues (419). And this may free texts to do more things. But this is not terribly unlike a text in codex; we can flip, in a nonlinear fashion, to any section of the text. Further, in many digital texts, our ability to move nonlinearly is hampered; I’m thinking of going page-by-page through a Kindle or watching a video of text. Here, I don’t know if any power is taken from the reader, but none is added, either. And on balance, it seems that the author’s power is buffed, the reader’s nerfed.

I guess at some point I should decide why—or whether—this matters. I tend to think it does for two reasons, one that centers on the reader, and one that centers on the writer.

For the reader, we (an English department writ large?) need to provide an arsenal of tools to prepare a reader to encounter a digital text. To some extent, this has been studied at universities: “digital literacy,” “electracy.” But I don’t know whether this has penetrated into curriculum—particularly primary school curriculum—the way traditional literacy has. And I’m fairly certain no widespread effort exists to bring literate adults the skills of digital literacy. And without both of these efforts, we’ll relegate wide swaths of the population to ignorance of digital texts. This could result in authors of digital texts being unable to utilize the full repertoire of digital texts or these authors taking advantage of people unable to navigate these texts—depending on how nefarious you take these authors to be.

And for authors, the great power demands great responsibility, something technical communicators might embrace. After all, the increasing scope and responsibility would put us into that rarified “symbolic-analytic” work. That said, we cannot become too enamored with our tools. Because of the relative novelty of digital texts, we must be more careful when considering our audience. Rhetorical or linguistic moves we might expect the average literate reader to understand may have counterparts in the digital realm that are not likewise understood by these same readers.

Or, maybe the dated discussion is the answer. Perhaps, now, people are fully comfortable navigating digital texts—but I doubt it.

 

Works cited

Bernhardt, Stephen A. “The Shape of Text to Come.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 410-427. Print.