Warnick’s Credibility and the Credibility of “Medium Theory”

Rather than focusing solely on criticisms, I will begin with several points I find valuable. In her “Web-Text as Ephemeral” section, Chapter 2, Warnick correctly notes that due to archiving difficulties and software changes, the text a critic analyzes might not be available in the same format for that critic’s readers. She then concludes that web content might be preserved in a critic’s rhetorical analysis. Aside from screen capture software of static images or downloading video content, she has a good point. The drawback of course is not unlike that in Barthes. This preservation relies heavily on a second party to preserve a primary sources’s content and meaning, hence “privileging” critics. Since few critics (probably none, but I will avoid absolutes) can boast error-free analysis, what meaning or visual content is retained is equal parts critic and “author.”

In her “The User as Wanderer” section, Warnick also points to a component of web site construction that indeed differs from traditional print, oral, or visual media. She suggests that site construction is integral in retaining visitors. I would argue, though, that in theatrical performances and performance art pieces a similar “site” construction occurs. Her point appears to be that several new categories for analysis exist – especially in the case of credibility – categories that would not pertain to more traditional media. I do not doubt her point here since part of what we teach in the research class indeed focuses on determining the credibility of a web site, which in fact relies on layout, navigation ease, et. al.

Thus far, I agree with Warnick’s insistence that the web requires a different rhetorical approach than traditional rhetorical analysis. My criticism (ah, here it comes), however, applies to her methods and her rather grandiose claims and pronouncements. One such claim will suffice. In an early section, “The User’s Experience,” she cites Kaplan’s assumption (“view”) that web users “read Web texts with heightened attention” (30). In the ensuing two paragraphs she cites two examples – one predominantly visual, and the other what appears to be role-playing gamers who attempt to defeat the algorithm codes of the program. Warnick then insists: “These two examples from digital art and programmed gaming are apropos because both of these fields have a strong influence on the look and feel of the web” (30). I have no doubt of her conclusion here, but it has nothing at all to do with her claim concerning Web “readers.” One could create an empirical test to falsify or validate whether or not Web readers read “with heightened attention,” but apparently it is enough to make a claim and extrapolate from evidence that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No doubt Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser would agree, but Warnick’s focus is credibility, is it not?

As for Chapter Five, I will no doubt have more to say in class, but I really do not perceive any difference in her analysis of web sites and written, performed, or filmed texts. Although I agree that the potential for learning increases on the web – one can find information quickly that might indeed improve one’s understanding of content – this alone does not rise to a new level of intertextuality or reader as author, co-author (just what are we calling this author-function assimilation?). Her analysis does not illustrate to me that the reader creates or constructs the meaning or text. In fact, her analysis of web sites confirms to me that authors have always relied on a certain level of sophistication from their “ideal” readers (authorial audience). Those who do not match that level of sophistication may not understand the allusions to popular culture, politics, literature, etc. Finally, after reading her lengthy analysis of Jibjab, I fondly recalled scores of Monty Python episodes and several of their movies. I never felt as if I constructed any of their meaning. An example more to the point, however, would be a site such as John Amato’s Crooks and Liars, where he relies on video clips and snippets (with links to the original source) from other bloggers to create meaning. I would consider this site a legitimate intertextual construction.