Hypercompendia

I’ve started reading N. Katherine Hayles’ Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary and am wondering if I shouldn’t perhaps complete a presentation on hypertext from an author’s viewpoint before continuing.  The reasoning being that I feel I am being told how to look at hypertext and that this may taint my own recall of my experience; experience, that is, of being inexperienced about the medium and jumping into it as a writer rather than already having had a full comprehension of all aspects of the medium.

That said, I’ve already found myself in some disagreement with the more knowledgeable view.  Hayes states:

Electronic literature, generally considered to exclude print literature that has been digitized, is by contrast "digital born," a first-generation digital object created on a computer and (usually) meant to be read on a computer.  (p. 3)

Well, I would think that appears to exclude any version of the work produceable in print form, and yet, in most cases, a work has been "born" on a computer–versus pen and paper or typewriter that produces a physical version as it is being created. This concept might also include anything produced in hard copy form and transferred into ‘hard drive’ format.

But then Hayes goes on to offer the ELO accepted definition:

The committee’s formulation reads: "work with an important literary aspect that takes advantage of the capabilities and contexts provided by the stand-alone or networked computer."

She admits that this definition as well raises questions and perhaps by deeming hypertext as "hybrid" we can arrive at some resolution that at the very least, keeps the concept open–a nice and appropriate way to describe hypertext.