09.02.16, Aarseth
Aarseth compares the differences between a reader of traditional literature and a reader of cybertext. His comparisons were pretty spot on, because it shows the differences between traditional literature and cybertext. He also talks about cybertext can be mistaken for something less useful by the critics, but makes a pretty great argument for it. On page 3, he says "cybertext is a machine for the production of variety of expression." This is an easy way to explain that cybertext is no less important and thought-provoking just because it does not fit traditoonal standards. I think his idea of helping people understand by giving them a chance to experience cybertext is also a really smart idea. The only problem then would be: how do we ensure that everyone who experiences cybertext is able to experience it in a way that makes it easy to understand as a concept?