Bolter and Grusin, in this section, introduce us to the term immediacy. In situations such as virtual reality, it is important to be unaware that one is wearing a wire, headpiece, or whatever other equipment is used to transport an individual into a virtual world. When discussing first-person- point of view in virtual reality, Bolter and Grusin state, “...the viewer should forget that she is in fact wearing a computer interface and accept the graphic image that it offers as her own visual world” (316). However, one of the issues that come along with trying to create this sense of immediacy is that one can never completely replicate the features of the real world in a virtual setting.
The text later states, “In these new applications, the desire for immediacy is apparent in the claim that digital images or more exciting, lively, and realistic than mere text on a computer screen , and that a videoconference will lead to more effective communication than a telephone call”(Bolter, Grusin 316). The demand for immediacy is growing day by day specifically in the digital world. But, how do we translate this sense of immediacy over to written discourse? How do we achieve the same sense of immediacy in written text as we do in a virtual reality?
I want to argue that there are different types of immediacy related to digital media and written text. For the former, the immediacy is primarily visual; for the latter, it is more intellectually stimulating than visually. The act of reading, after all, was originally the next most immediate thing next to the act of speaking. The next most immediate thing to speaking and reading, then, became watching and seeing. I sense that there is a 'circle', a connected hierarchy, of immediacy that connects all (written, spoken, and visual) media historically, as Bolter & Grusin suggest in the structure of their essay.
ReplyDeleteImmediacy can also be implemented through style within a written text. Comparable to the visual "window" format of our computer screens, using framing or other stylistic elements in writing can enrich the reader's experience with a text. I think you might be forgetting that, when reading a good novel, a reader usually doesn't find it necessary to retrieve supplementary material similar to that of a multimodal text in order to enjoy the story. The immediacy is the reader’s contact with the story through words, the writing itself is sufficient for the experience. Instead of needing to be "translated," into written text, like you suggest, I want to assert that immediacy comes from written text.
However, the use of a combination of written text and visual aids is what creates the beginning of the sensory "immersion" that Bolter & Grusin discuss. As technology progresses and the demand for physical and visual immediacy grows, written text is entirely hidden from the (reader-turned-) audience, who only experiences what the screens portray. I believe that's what you're alluding to when you say there is an issue with assimilating that visual immediacy into written text. It’s difficult to give visual immediacy to written text, but obviously it has been done already, since the creation of html websites and the popularizing art of typography. Ultimately, I don’t think there is much to worry about in terms of the immediacy of the written word.