6. HYPERTEXTUALITY AND THE TRULY TRANSTEXTUAL MACHINES

Hypertextuality in Genettean sense deals with systematical grafting of a new text (a hypertext) upon a previous text (a hypotext) in a way that is not commentary. These imitations and transformations are formal and thematic, and it is safe to say that cybertexts add a third option, the functional one, as well as transform the previous two. There are least three separate aspects to that situation. Firstly, there's a new possibility of gradual and serial transformation where the text goes through several different phases and quite possibly loses contact with its first or previous hypotext in the process, just imagine some banal desert island story that first models itself after Ibn Tufayl and then after Grimmelshausen, Saikaku, Defoe, Tournier and Eco. To get to know this you just have to keep on rereading. Secondly, this transformation may be purely functional, let's say we first turn a detective story into a hypertext and boost its epistemological structures with conditional links, hiding the evidence so to speak, and then turn this hypertext into a cybertext that after certain time starts playing with both its own and its users time and begins to destroy its static scriptons, that is, its evidence. Consequently and thirdly, we can ask a billion dollar question: if we'd choose do this to Stephen King, can we successfully claim that our copyright to our product will then be totally independent of Stephen King's copyright?

Virtually every text generator can show us the transformation of textons into changing scripton combinations in a way that is challenging enough to every traditional notion of inter- and hyper-textuality. The words waste and land may or may not be combined to constitute a reference to Eliot. You'll never know until it happens, and when it does you might not be there to witness this intratextonic nihilogue. Another case that comes to mind is the emergent growth of textual systems. Let's say there are two such systems connected to each other over the net continuously affecting the organization and reorganization processes of each other. The host and the parasite, the hypotext and the hypertext reprogrammed n times, until the one completely consumes or deadly inflicts the other. Scholars are very welcome to attach their favorite meanings to every morph, or forced to change their approach as there's no way to slow down the rotational speed (rpm) of any hermeneutic circle under such circumstances.

Users are an obvious source for inter- and hypertextuality, but what happens or should happen when a Shakespeare snob meets a Shakespeare bot in some MOO. Is there any reason we should trace the connections whatever they are, or should we finally let the sleeping traditions lay and concentrate on more interesting issues if there are any? When users bring their transtextual fields and priorities into conversation and consumption, they may have a carefully calculated chance to convert the process to certain inter- or hypertextual directions. There's also room for an interesting inversion: the machine may turn critical or even allergic to such a civilizing process and may begin to defend its own priorities against the invading flow of users' cultural capital. In Kristeva's terms such a reaction may be either geno- or phenotextual. Imagine a collection of texts that needs to be regularly fed with other texts from outside, like a tamagotchi, vicious little cybertexts using Kafka as a catalyst to induce series of transformations in them and their relations to each other, and to Kafka too. One may also construct bloomian filters that may cause intense suffering from the anxiety of feminist and multiculturalist influence.

1. INTRODUCTION: TRANSTEXTUALITY MEETS CYBERTEXTUALITY

2. ARCHITEXTUALITY AND METAMEDIA


3. TO COMMENT OR TO COMMAND: METATEXTUALITY AND THE PROGRAMMABLE PERFORMATIVE POWER(S)

4. PARATEXTS: TO SERVE AND TO PROTECT


5. INTERTEXTUALITY AND THE METAPHYSICS OF LINKS

7. FROM CYBERTEXT TO CYBERTEXT AND BACK AGAIN


8. REFERENCES