It was not simply the lack of multimedia present in “afternoon,” as opposed to that in “Hegirascope” which I found somewhat irritating while reading “afternoon.” Yes, I found it bothersome that the screen was comprised largely of white space with some black text at the top and there was very little to aesthetically stimulate the reader. However, unlike in other hypertexts we have read, I found myself thinking more and more about “closure” and realizing that there were several fragments of “afternoon” which I found to be very eloquent, provocative, and led me to want to read into the particular fragment more. In general, this did not seem possible, as the reader chooses to focus on a specific word or link that leads to another fragment or simply press the return key, from whence the reader is thrown into the proverbial cold water of attempting to decipher a new text.
Relatively early on, I resigned myself to the fact that I would have some level of difficulty understanding the various voices, narrators, ‘he’s and ‘she’s, as well as the relationships between the characters. My attempts proved futile, even after exploring the text for extended periods of time, and even after returning to the text following a break from it. Nonetheless, I found much of the dialogue intriguing, as well as the narrator’s descriptions of places. [4 what I see] paints a picture of glinting glass where, ostensibly, a car accident occurred. I am left with the image of gurneys leading up to a place where bodies lay, and then, wanting to know more, I am inevitably swept away into other dimensions of “afternoon.”
While there were moments when I felt connections between story fragments, they were few and far between. Some of these threads lead to “endings,” but they are cliff-hanger endings, such as [I call], in which the narrator takes a pill and calls Lolly. One cannot enter the return key any longer. I can still navigate away from the page by clicking on the links button, but it does not alleviate the tension many of these fragments precipitated for me.
I’d rather not argue whether or not “closure” factors into “afternoon” so much as it simply provided an unsatisfactory reading experience for me in that I wanted to know more about several things and find a sense of resolve somewhere in the story. One of the speakers in [*me] asserts that “I’m not sure that I have a story,” which I found interesting. It led me to deeper questions about the text and what Joyce’s intentions in creating it were. In the interview provided in the instructions, Joyce mentions the “music of the word within our story spaces.” Given the interesting dynamics between the speakers and the diligent care evidently used in word choices, the concept of the “music” of the text certainly resonated with me. The music of the text in “afternoon,” I felt, was key to its value, at least in my interpretation of reading through it.
Additionally, Joyce refers to the transcendental nature of hypertext as opposed to traditional print text. Although I cannot say I had a “transcendental” experience while reading “afternoon,” I can understand why one might, perhaps, in that one explores a completely new set of pathways that don’t resemble the linear paths of print texts. It is a structural maze within which one can get lost in a way that may be satisfying for some.
Ultimately, after pondering the idea of “closure” as it pertains to “afternoon,” I heeded my convictions of considering its value as a musical, or lyrical, text. I lingered over well-chosen words and well-written phrases, points of interest and tension, intriguing dialogue, and so on. This greatly helped me to more deeply appreciate the text.