Simplicity has boundaries. Technology does not. How many of us can believe one or both of those two statements? Technology is making rapid advancements, but we still see limits and yet refuse to accept them. These advancements are not just limited to software packages and updated search engines; they include the rapidly expanding field of information technology. The information being gathered by computers is being placed inside of huge depositories, or data warehouses, and then gleaned for useful knowledge. This process may seem simple enough; however, how society uses and manipulates this information is the real question one must address in order to understand the overall picture.
        The information searches that utilize the technology of computers and the Internet are becoming more common every day. Government, schools and businesses are all reaping tremendous benefits from being able to gather information quickly and efficiently; and the field of literary studies is no stranger to this new phenomenon. By understanding and utilizing computer technology, literary scholars are quickly advancing into a new age of research capabilities through isolated keyword/phrase searches and electronic texts and indexes. What should be addressed though is whether or not scholars and others who use the Internet and the machines that access it really understand the nature of their beast. Beyond that, educators should be aware that there are various levels of representation available on the Internet and that literary research performed via this medium should not always be taken as blind fact. Above all, everyone associated with the Internet and literary studies should realize technology is a tool that, once embraced, will help spawn new devices for the advancement and proliferation of our past as well as securing a place for us in the future.

It Breathes

        The above paragraph contained a variety of statements and probably raised several questions along the way. To get a better understanding of the "big" picture one must look back at the beginnings of the Internet to grasp the overall technology. In order to realize these beginnings there is no need to look to Al Gore, simply look at the wires criss-crossing almost every town in America. Telephones are where the beginnings of the modern Internet were born.
        Back in the late 60’s and early 70’s several people, not employed by the telephone company, were beginning to explore the possibilities of telephone technology. These people became known as “Phone Phreaks” and were able to understand just how the phone company interprets and places calls placed from various locations throughout the world. In essence, these people were the modern day computer “hackers.” They had the ability, through a technology known at the time as a          “blue box,” to make calls from any phone in the world to any other phone in the world for free. People with unusual aliases such as Captain Crunch became synonymous with misuse of the telephone. The excitement for the “freaks” was not getting the free call; it was the thrill of being one of only a few people to truly understand how a technology works. From there these newly ordained “telephone bandits” began meeting to not only discuss their “blue boxes,” but also another new technology – the computer.
        Not long after the first microcomputer was marketed, the Homebrew Computer Club came into existence. This computer club was aimed at the sharing of ideas concerning the new technology of computers. As word of this new microcomputer technology spread so did attendance at Homebrew meetings. Steve Wosniak, co-founder of Apple Computers, (Apple Computer and 23 other companies were founded out of the Homebrew organization) was an early member of this club and one of the first to break from it when it was learned that sharing technology secrets with club members could eventually cost him an innovative edge in the business of computer sales. Things were changing and it was only a matter of time before information replaced the physical computer as the thing that interested people the most.

It Thinks

        After the marketing of the microcomputer the snowball effect rapidly took place. Computers and computer companies were popping up everywhere and the technology revolution was underway.  However, one of the biggest dilemmas for early programmers was finding the best way to represent tangible objects in a virtual world.  Dots and pixels made it difficult to portray things in a realistic manner; therefore, many people who experienced computers early on were turned away by their slow speeds and poor graphics.  But all of that was about to change.
        With the marketing of Intel's first micro-computer chip in 1974 the way a computer represents things began to open up.  In addition, the Internet provided a medium where “techies” could trade programs and information.  It was the beginning of our new modern world – a place where computers would open up possibilities yet remove the need to remember or contemplate nearly as much.
        Literary scholar Martin Mueller wrote a paper in 1996 titled Memory and Technology.  In it he directly addresses several key issues concerning technology, one being that with technology the need to remember things decreases to a certain degree.

        “Cultural memory depends on signs that survive into the next generation. For the literary scholar, the most important of these signs are written records. Spoken language continually reproduces itself, but such reproduction is subject to a continuing drift largely hidden from its users. “Our language flows every day out of our hands,” Montaigne observed.* Without writing and under conditions of local separation, linguistic speculation occurs quite rapidly. Many scholars have posited a radical divide between a literate and a preliterate world. On such views textual identity and linearity are seen as the consequences of writing. I think the arguments about technologically induced paradigm shifts in the status of language to be largely misguided. The deep paradoxes about human language sit well below the level of the ingenious and powerful extensions human beings have invented to record, store, and transmit their utterances. All such extensions operate perforce within the parameters of biologically given capacities for decoding verbal messages. John Searle, in an oddly Heideggerian moment, has pointed out that the etymological origins of Indo-European words for 'truth' take you to words meaning 'tree,' 'root,' or 'straight.** "Let's get this straight," is not a metaphor of truth arising from a linear regime of print. In a world of hunters and gatherers language was a very useful instrument for locating the sources of food or planning and executing an attack on large game. It cannot have escaped those intelligent and practical creatures that slips of language could be very costly and that one needed to be on one's guard against error and deception. Homeric messengers repeat their instructions verbatim and impose on the listener the non-trivial burden of hearing the same thing twice. Whatever the precise origin of this peculiar rhetorical convention, it testifies to the value a preliterate world can attach to the exact repetition of a verbal message. And regardless of whether the exact repetition of such messages was ever achieved in practice (how could you verify it?), as soon as you think of exact repetition as a desirable goal, you have some concept of a fixed text. In short, textuality never fell into a world of writing or print from which hyptertextuality or performance will deliver us” (Mueller 88).

        Mueller seems well aware of the possibilities of using computers and goes on to further address them later in his essay.  What is interesting is that Mueller, a literary scholar, seems to suggest that computers are putting scholars out of business.  By saying this Mueller is suggesting that computers, once loaded with all the appropriate texts, will be able to do the same searches that scholars do now and do so in a fraction of the time.  However, even if this happens computers will still only be able to perform tasks they were told to do in the first place.  The ability of a computer to think on its own is interesting, but the programming element will still always have to be there.
         Associated with programming a computer is the idea of representing a tangible object on a screen.  Even more important is the question of how will people perceive this object when viewed through the medium of computer technology.  A computer screen cannot reproduce an object in three-dimensional form so that the user can see/feel/hear/smell it.  Rather, a computer must use a series of dots to compose a picture that the user then interprets as being something he/she is familiar with.  It is this interpretation of an object and how things are represented on the Internet that should always be kept in mind, especially for anyone studying exclusively via the computer medium. In Jacques Derrida’s essay Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences he states that language does not name anything and everything is a representative and can be deferred to other things.   By stating this Derrida is disagreeing with the basic premise that words equal meaning.  Rather, he would like to assert that the meaning changes by whom is reading it.  This is interesting in that with literary studies various texts could be represented on several differently designed web pages which in turn would produce several readings of a text by different people simply because of the change in perspective.
         In the same sense, representation outside of a computer is usually not only based on visual but also emotional.  It is this emotional factor that computers cannot recreate.  Computers cannot feel sorrow or pain or fear.  They only follow a set of algorithms that they were programmed with.  In Iain Boal’s essay Body, Brain, and Communication: An Interview with George Lakoff, Mr. Lakoff states that people understand through the body and computers only understand through programs.  “Most of our abstract concepts are extensions of bodily based concepts that have to do with motion and space, and objects we manipulate, and states of our bodies, and so on.  They then get projected by metaphor onto abstract concepts.  We understand through the body.  Computers don’t have bodies” (Holeton 27).  The representation that a computer projects then is something lacking any type of emotion – it is a vision with no “real” feeling.

It Confuses

      Stanley Fish once posed the question, “Is it authors or readers who make up the text?”  This is interesting to consider, especially when discussing computers and the Internet.  The “Information Superhighway” is loaded with text, but is it really information to you if you never read it?  Sure, it is a resource that is untapped, much like the bottom of the ocean, but how much of it can one consider information if it is never read?  In the same sense, especially concerning interpretation, do the authors of the web site present their information in a coherent manner so that everyone interprets it in the same manner?  If not, then who is ultimately responsible for the interpretation – which brings us back to Mr. Fish’s question – is it the author or reader who makes up the text?
        Computers are a technology that people must be trained to understand.  Without these trained experts many of us would not be able to even turn on our machines.  But at the same time one has to consider the effect of having only a small percentage of the population know the “ins and outs” of computers.  It begs the question then of how much information are the experts presenting us and how reliable is it.  One of my colleagues has developed a web site dealing with critical thinking and the Internet while also addressing the concept of reliability of information on the Internet.  What is interesting is that many people never question what is being printed, they simply ingest it as solid fact if it is on the web.  However, wouldn't it be possible for the computer experts to manipulate the information we see so that we only get their version of a story or event?  And if this is possible, is it already happening and we donut see it?  Whatever the case, the Internet and computers are technologies that require training to be associated with – training deferred from another source.
        Once trained in computers they can become wonderful allies in research.  Fast and easy searches utilizing one of dozens of Internet search engines yields results in seconds with just the touch and click of a mouse.  Literary scholars no longer have to worry about spending hours in front of microfiche machines – they can now get several newspaper indexes online and quickly find the article they were looking for.  Key word searches help find strings of phrases or instances when a character said something specifically.  Catalogs of texts and electronic books make the mobility of a scholar that much greater while at the same time helping to make more efficient use of time.
        However, the Internet is a tool that sometimes breaks – or goes down as it may be.  Computers are the same way, when they break they need an expert to fix them.  For that time being the scholar must either go to the local watering hole for a game of darts or resort to the old method of sifting through stacks of books by hand.  In any case, the computer must then be reprogrammed to fix the problem – at which time the technician must tell the computer how to interpret things for us.  When this happens often time information is lost or changed and one must start the learning process all over again.  Fortunately computers, as do people, change throughout time.  It is this change that ultimately spawns new life.

It Lives On

        Spawning new life with computers are the people that push the envelope of technology every day – hackers.  These are the people responsible for not only tampering with several computer networks and software packages, but for also making sure everyone involved in the research and development of computer technology is aware of the fact that it is very easy to alter the way people perceive information through technological devices.  Hackers force manufactures and technicians to constantly reevaluate the type of information they present and how easy it is to access it.  In addition, hackers drive the technology of computers in that in order to make it more difficult for hackers to access information there must be new systems developed.  Once developed, the old methods of access will be disseminated to the public because new and improved are available for the technicians.  However, once hackers break that technology the cycle will repeat itself – continuing to do so until technology realizes its temporary limits.
        Concerning literary studies the link to it and hackers is slim.  However, the advancement of technology that hackers spawn has increased the ability of scholars to study texts.  Large databases of books and articles (many “protected” by passwords) are available to search.  Programs that search for certain words or phrases are available, electronic recordings of authors reading their works are available, and video technology is just coming into its own.  Gone are the days of clerical duty with a pencil and a stack of books.  Today the world moves click to click and literary scholars are no exception.
        In addition, if hackers have an uncanny ability to manipulate technology, what would prevent them from changing an on-line version of some obscure Norwegian text?  In essence, they could go through and present their version of stories and many people, not recognizing the misrepresentation, would believe it as fact.  This is something that could easily happen and with the move to place more and more texts on-line what will really stop this?  Are original copies being saved still, and if not what will happen when no one can recognize that the story has been changed?  This could easily relate to what was stated earlier about memory and technology – once technology is relied on so heavily what will force people to use their mind to remember things?  The need to remember will no longer be there and people will undoubtedly begin forgetting the past.  Critical thinking will need to be at an all time high when this occurs.
        What does the future hold?  Only time will tell, but be prepared for a variety of technologies seeping into mainstream American society.  Cell phones and Palm Pilots are already common place.  Soon voice activated search engines, video watches and maybe even a type of “holodeck” will be available.  The 80's movie War Games gave us the first real glimpse of what modern computers are capable of; people like Kevin Mitnick are expanding these possibilities indefinitely.  Whatever the case, be sure that hackers will have a hand in representing their version of the technology.   John Keats stated, “Ever let the Fancy roam,/ Pleasure never is at home.”  This holds especially true with computer technology – just when you get comfortable with it someone is using his/her imagination to make it all obsolete.  However, it is this imagination that is propelling us forward and forcing society to evolve onto a higher plain.

Derrida, Jacques.  "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences."  Writing and Difference.
    Trans.  Alan Bass.  Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.  278-93.

Holeton, Richard.  Composing Cyberspace: Identity, Community, and Knowledge in the Electronic Age.
    Boston: McGraw Hill, 1998.

Mueller, Martin.  Memory and Technology: Literary Studies after the Millennium.
    Centennial Review 41 (1997), 83-101.