Ted Gup discusses the benefits of bound texts verse electracy in his essay entitled, "The End of Serendipity." Gup claims that, without using bound texts, people limit themselves intellectually. More particularly, he believes that Internet gurus are limited intellectually because they do not accidentally discover interesting texts held within their chosen medium, as do researchers using printed texts. For example, if people look up "apartheid" in a bound encyclopedia, they might stumble across an interesting segment on armadilloes or Louie Armstrong. For another example, if someone is reading the newspaper, that person is forced at least to skim over happenings in other parts of the world. Gup's claim, in my opinion, is short-sighted and unintelligible.

Gup believes that cybertexts have been diced into user-friendly summaries. These summaries allow readers to go straight to information pertinent to their lives. News and articles are presented as headlines or main points of interest. Therefore, readers must only read a few lines to determine whether or not they are interested. Is literary convenience really causing us to limit ourselves, or does it allow us more time to experience the three-dimensional world outside the realm of texts?

Just because people are not forced to skim over various articles available within a text does not mean they will not make chance discoveries. People who are genuinely interested in expanding their intellectual horizons will do so. Gup does not account for the plethora of links to similar articles and multicultural perspectives provided by the Internet. Go to any local newspaper's website and read an article on global warming. More than likely the article includes several links to various perspectives on the issue. A bound newspaper would only have one perspective. Now I ask: Which article is better, one with a single perspective or one with multiple perspectives?

The Internet allows almost anyone to have access to all texts for virtually free. Why is it that those who cling to bound texts insist that others do the same? I realize I am playing the devil's advocate to some, but I feel many people are more attached to the concept of bound books rather than to the actual texts that reside inside the binding. I don't think Gup dislikes Internet texts. I believe he, like many, clings to the relics of a fading medium.

We live in a postmodern generation. Our texts have become more fragmented, but they contain vaster amounts of intellectual wealth. We must keep up with the times and technology by transforming and evolving with our texts. The transition from an oral culture to a literate one was fought every bit as hard as the transition from literacy to electracy. This next step, electracy, is a merely a continuation of the evolution process. The Internet has not brought about the end of serendipity. It has brought about a new age in information acquisition and textual exploration and has preserved those accidental intellectual discoveries.

Gup, Ted. "The End of Serendipity." CyberReader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor J. Vitanza. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999. 250-252.