In his hypertext essay “Hearsay of the Sun: Photography, Identity, and the Law of Evidence in Nineteenth-Century American Courts,” Thomas Thurston said he hoped to help “establish standards in incorporating primary texts into critical essays, foster collaboration among scholars from different disciplines, and perhaps lead to the development of more ambitious legal-historical hypertexts.” The second of these goals is compatible with a traditional academic article. Thurston attempted to reach his first goal through the juxtaposition of text, bibliographic notations, and primary source material. In this way, another scholar can check Thurston’s argument in the process of reading the article. This is innovative and takes advantage of the nature of hypertext. However, overall, Thurston’s essay could easily have been produced in a standard academic journal. The ability to double-check the primary sources seems of limited benefit to the scholar who presumably is reading the article for argument, not mining it for primary source material. The authority of the academic journal would establish Thurston’s credibility – not a hypertext link. Regarding Thurston’s third goal, it remains to be seen whether he will spur “more ambitious legal-historical hypertexts.”
David Westbrook’s “From Hogan’s Alley to Coconino County: Four Narratives of the Early Comic Strip” made effective use of hypertext in his presentation of various cartoons, which were reproduced as printed and also with annotations by the author. However, once again these points could have been made in a scholarly journal as a caption to the cartoon – although perhaps an academic journal would be less inclined to present so many illustrations. Westbrook also said his “essay” was really three essays, which different sections making different arguments, and with no overarching thesis. This does not appear, however, to be a result of the nature of the Internet, but rather a choice Westbrook made in presenting his material. There was also a separate section with just the cartoons, and once again an academic journal might be reluctant to reproduce so many illustrations. The cartoons themselves are fascinating, but hard to decipher without Westbrook’s commentary. They also are difficult to read in many cases. Perhaps this is the result of the original source material and not a reflection on New Media. The overriding impression of many of the cartoons was their racism and use of ethnic stereotypes.
Overall, I found both essays to be interesting and to make good use of New Media, but I also think this material could easily have been presented in a standard scholarly journal – although without the primary source material in Thurston’s essay and the number of cartoons in Westbrook’s.