Hypertext Metalogue

In his essay "Unfinished Business," Peter Lunenfeld describes the metalogue as "a conversation in which the form of the discussion embodies the subject being discussed: a metalogue about the nature of passion is impassioned" (7). So a metalogue on hypertext would be hypertextual.

This assignment asks you to engage in a hypertext metalogue, either with an another student (you may team up for this), or with an imaginary partner. If you chose to do this as a pair, the metalogue must be 1500 words; if you compose individually, it must be 750 words.

One rather simple way to begin a metalogue may be the "devil's advocate" approach: arguing for the sake of arguing, or purposefully "misunderstanding" a point (in order to force either a clarification or a deeper discussion. Think of the proverbial three-year-old asking "why?"

The metalogue should be playful; the point to engage in a dialogue which illustrates the points you want to make. The metalogue seems to be well-suited to hypertext, since neither make their points directly; many hypertext critics find its "discursive" methods rather distracting. The metalogue, similarly, seems to meander, making its points by indirect rather than direct methods.

The technical requirement that this assignment be a hypertext is only part of the "hypertextuality," however. I also want you to explore some of the deeper rhetorical and philosophical issues that hypertext puts before us: the nature of interactivity, linearity, authority, responses, responsibilities, expectations, codes, and so on.

Models:

Hypertext: The "robusto" version of Stuart Moulthrop's Hypertext '96 trip report
Text: Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson, "Metalogue: Why Do You Tell Stories?"