I remember the lecture in which the two points of view on narrative were personified. Two people read out different passages, one as a conventional reader, and the other as a hypertextualist. At the time, I was sure I belonged to the second category, enjoying disorientation, subjectivity, and multi-linearity. After a few more lectures, I was surprised to discover that I was wrong - the digital texts we were discussing unsettled me, and challenged my perceptions of what a narrative should be. Over the summer, I have been forced to reassess what it means to be conventional. It seems to me that the definition of 'conventional' is constantly shifting, that it is not a static concept. When I think about it, this shouldn't come as a surprise; new and fantastic products and ideas never stay new and fantastic for very long. That would defeat the purpose of being 'new'.

I've also realised that I don't have as steady a grasp on the digital world as I thought I did. I've grown up with computers, they are just another part of my life, but I never knew that the world behind the words on the screen went so deep, or that it was such a tangled swamp of narrative threads. Digital narrative is far more immersive than standard printed texts can ever be, although it takes time to get used to reading beyond the screen, instead of beyond the page. The unsettling nature of hypertexts is part of their appeal, although at first it is just disorienting and annoying. Had I not taken this course, I would never have read any of the texts we have studied, and I believe that having done so, I've gained an insight into how far the form of a narrative can be twisted and shaped, but still remain a story.

This course has shown me a different way of looking at the world, and although it took me a while to get my head around many of the concepts that were introduced, it also helped me to understand other courses I have taken. Specifically, I was also studying Literary Theory this summer, and apart from the obvious overlaps in the course material, certain names that came up in both courses linked the digital to the 'real' even more solidly for me. Jean Baudrillard's writing gave me a lot to think about.

I'm left with a final question, though. In an increasingly digital world, are the cyber-realities we have created for ourselves any less real, or any less relevant, than the conventional 'real' world?