The concept of language as a means of effective communication has existed for many centuries now without much question or debate. Although many languages are read in different directions, the linearity of printed language is still universal. So when Richard A. Lanham brought the idea of the “efficiency” of printed language to my attention, it caught me slightly off guard. I’ve never even contemplated the idea of literature “struggling to overcome this limitation”, but after doing so I tend to disagree with Lanham’s analysis. To me, literature is meant to express ideas, convey emotions, introduce ideas and capture an audience. Linear print has managed to do all of these things and more over the course of history, and to call this method less effective than non-linear text seems unnecessary. Literature does not always have to be created out of productivity, but more often for the enjoyment of its audience.
I am not trying to make an argument against non-linear text or its effectiveness. I do believe there are multiple benefits are reached by creating kinetic text: interaction with the audience, a sense of relatability, and creative expression are among them. But I think moving text also has its downfalls. Not all visual images are culturally universal, which can lend itself to misinterpretation. The images, particularly the ones used in “The Elevator” video provided by Lanham, can be very distracting and take away from the actual story trying to be told. I had to re-watch the video so that I could actually understand what the text was trying to say. Overall I believe kinetic text can be advantageous, but to say that it is more “effective” and “productive” than liner text seems slightly close-minded.