For my basic criteria for who I think deserves an “A” on the analytical hypertext response essay, I looked for people who integrated the required examples into some sort of argument, over those who simply listed examples and described what they were. All three of the people I chose fulfill my understanding of what the prompt was asking: integrating various sources into one cohesive argument about Internet culture and democracy.
Kate Lanier did this, and presented the material in an engaging way. The intro page does an excellent job of simultaneously establishing her subject and hooking in the audience, an her lack of linear writing is enviable, something I need to learn how to do. The examples she uses don’t stick to the ones provided on the syllabus, but they fit her argument better than I think a lot of the websites would have. To me, this demonstrates that Kate thought critically about the subject matter, and didn’t limit herself when creating an argument. To top it all off, the site is designed well, which goes beyond what the assignment called for.
Myrna Mungal also does an excellent job of integrating the raw materials into a cohesive argument. She brings up interesting questions about Internet culture that show that she thought about the subject matter; she seems to want to contribute to the subject, rather than just talking about it. It’s quite apparent that Myrna has strong opinions on the matters she discusses, but she has the examples and analysis to back up any criticisms she has on the different website examples. The design also shows she had fun with format, using different font colors, sizes, and narrative devices to argue her points. But this playful hypertext doesn’t distract from her argument (as it does is some other examples; instead, Myrna uses the form of the hypertext in a way that positively affects her argument.
Finally, Lauren Tsugawa uses a very engaging format to argue her points about democracy on the Internet. Here is where I most see the hypertext format aiding the content on the page; it organizes Lauren’s examples and analysis very affectively, presenting her arguments clearly. She uses various types of visual mediums to break up her text sections, which makes reading it easier for the reader (much appreciated). And her analysis shows that she did more than just look at the examples. She integrated them into thoughtful questions and issues about Internet culture. She also recognizes that the questions she raises can’t be answered, which I think signals clear, intelligent thinking.
Like I’ve said, these three response essays all create cohesive arguments that use examples so support analysis instead of as analysis. They all use the format of the hypertext to improve how their essay is read, and I believe all three should be rewarded for the thought and work they obviously put into the assignment.