The End of Books - Response

The article “The End of Books” (1992) by Robert Coover explored what hypertext and hyperfiction provided that regular print text didn’t: establishing new narratives with branches and multiple paths between sets of text. Structure and improvisation become important as “the creative imagination often becomes more occupied with linkage, routing and mapping than with statement or style” (707). It is this hypertext markup that made up how most of the Web content was first introduced to the mainstream, meaning that you can move from one link to the next at any given time, and there is an organizational pattern there that cannot be found in traditional print. In this view, it can certainly be seen that the end of books is near, but I think it’s still too soon to make that conclusion.

While the advocates of online mediums would say that this organizational power is the only valid method in which information should be communicated, I would still not want to see regular hard-copy books and texts go away so easily. As convenient, organized and never-ending as the Internet is for virtually anything imaginable, the solidity of books, newspapers and magazines is still something I trust and find value in. Most mediums are starting to move that way; in addition to books and music, magazines, movies and games are also moving away from physical media. However, for me, I consider that the traditional narrative flow and lack of text fragments (as the article likes to coin these characteristics) is still worthy as printed text on paper. Physically holding a story or report in your hand carries centuries-worth of significance to the medium, and reading things on a tablet or mobile device is still in its early stages today. The trend started with hypertext when this article was written, but until the technology barrier is further broken down for more demographics and with better accessibility and costs, physical printing of texts will still be around and still be worthy of reading.