Links accelerate the concept of payoff in reading. Setup and payoff are a classic concept in storytelling and entertainment in general. You put together the elements in a mystery novel so that when the reader reaches the end all the little pieces will tie together nicely in a “if you’d really been paying attention you might have figured this out” kind of way. Hyperlinks provide a different kind of payoff that’s more of the instant gratification variety, but no less capable of artistic expression.
To return to the example from part one,
| Does this really deserve this much coverage? | Does this really deserve |
The payoff is twofold: One, to find out what it is that doesn’t deserve so much coverage and two, to find out just how much coverage it’s getting. The payoff itself serves a third purpose, which is to provide evidence of the very premise of the post. Finally the layout is intended to emphasize the point by spacing out the individual pieces of evidence.
(Incidentally, this is also where we get to start thinking about links as citations that are, in and of themselves, instant access to the things they cite, hence my assertion that links are “footnotes on crack.”)
When writing, you can think of each link you create as a promise. You can either fulfill that promise, play with the concept of that promise, or deliberately subvert that promise, which is where we get the rickroll.
While payoff is nothing new in reading, the speed with which it can occur is so rapid as to go from a difference in degree to a difference in kind. I say this because the speed allows for an interplay between the text and what the text links to. Our involvement in that interplay is what I think represents a new way of reading.
I understand this better now. One of the advantages of blogging is the freedom of style that you don’t get in traditional journalism. It allows you to emphasize points in different ways. The number of links to the same story can give it emphasis even without defining what “it” is. The links thus become less important as sources, but more important in defining the scope of the issue. The author doesn’t include the links so that they’ll be clicked on for further reading. He includes them to show how his article relates to a bigger story.
“He includes them to show how his article relates to a bigger story.”
Exactly. And these links contribute to a different way of reading in that since this relationship is now more explicit and immediately accessible (than, say, footnotes or citations), the reader can treat the text as a series of interrelated texts which amount to a gamespace and…I’m getting ahead of myself, but it’s a more gamespace approach to information consumption. I’ll elaborate on this point in future posts.