So if we continue this analogy, what would have been the equivalent of unlinked reading pre-Internet? Did it even exist before gas-lighting, if we continue Nick’s point?

I would suggest that the analog here is part of the discussion currently taking place about the function of the Internet – how we share knowledge. Pre-1990 links are the reading circle/discussion groups themselves. The Internet so far has been an additive force for breadth of information, and until social reading matures, there is an argument to be made that its alienating/anti-social side effects are a subtractive one.

But your proposed definition — ”prose without links” — raises the question of what linking is, especially before 1990 or so. Are the Dickensian readers sharing a candle and a novel in the parlor of an 1860s evening participating in linked reading? I think you’re suggesting they are, and if so, how do the very different material forms this reading took affect its linkedness?

It seems to me that what hypertext offers us over and above sociality is a kind of hypotaxis: a structuring of association into nested hierarchies. The preexisting sociability on which such reading is based is probably much less formed.

Good writers are a dime a dozen. To be successful, you need to learn what Anne teaches. How to Get Published.

Take Anne’s class or compete against someone like me who did.

It will only take a minute reading any of Anne’s work to figure out that she’s smart–and that is what this course is all about: the chance to hear from someone who has made this shift from the ivy tower into broader print in such an intelligent, creative way. I took the first version of this course earlier this spring, and I was inspired by her honesty and willingness to take risks in her own work, grateful for the great practical ideas for how to do this thing and much, much closer to getting where I want to be. I got great feedback on pitch ideas and hope to be working with her again soon (just as soon as I get this stack of paper off my desk).