Clio Wired (History 696)

That having been said, however, I have some problems with dreams as a subject matter of history. The subject of dreaming as it is presented and the retelling of dreams the authors had about Arnold is simply not history, although it is a main component of the site. Dream study as it is presented here is psychology, anthropology or neurology at best; as a result the project just didn’t work at the most basic level as an interactive, informative history site. While it might fall under Staley’s category of a “three dimensional immersive collage”, or a synchronic narrative, it isn’t good history. As Westbrook suggests, “The various contrasting discourses and contexts that inform the creation of a cultural product can reinforce each other, highlight each other through conflict, and reveal things together that they never could apart”. (255) But that doesn’t relieve the authors from making some connection in a foundational, scholarly text. I agree with Kolb as found in Westbrook, “There need to be mechanisms for creating localities within the text . . . The reader needs to have the sense of having entered a zone dedicated to an argument, a discourse, or a discursive gesture with some local form, rather than being within a random cloud of associations and links.” (257) I embrace the notion of interdisciplinary studies in history, but this project fell well below the standard of academic excellence expected even at the graduate level of study. If I were Schwarzenegger, I wouldn’t have granted them in interview either when I got a load of what they were up to.

“Dreaming Arnold Schwarzenegger” is not a survey of the history of dreams or dream study, but an attempt to connect dreams and dreaming to the ideology of interactive hypertext and create a type of interactive multidimensional history that Staley describes. While the subject of Arnold Schwarzenegger might be pop culture history, and the idea of his iconic rise an interesting way to look at the “American dream”, dream study and Schwarzenegger are not connected here except for the inane retelling of the author’s dreams encountered while researching the project. The nature of scattered options dreams leave us, (as according to Bert States in Staley) is a valid and interesting paralell with a virtual reality that could be used in hypertext history. The scattered dream/optional ending ideology could parallel with an interactive virtual history site as described by Staley, but the connection didn’t amalgamate on this site. After many hours on the site, I had read all the text and clicked on every one of the links. The end result was that I learned little or nothing reliable about Schwarzenegger and even less about American pop culture and the development of the “American dream”. There was no cumulative experience, guided or unguided, that allowed me to understand history, as Staley suggests there need be, and I am still wondering for what audience they are aiming.

According to Roy Rosenzweig in the Forum on Hypertext Scholarship AQ as Web-Zine: Responses to AQ's Experimental Online Issue, the authors felt that common book or article type publication “did not seem to meet the needs of their subject and their analysis…"We needed a medium, a forum," they write, "that would allow us to incorporate not just the more formal components of investigative research, but also the kinds of discoveries and reflections that are more traditionally relegated to the margins of qualitative research." (242) But even in this chaotic and multifaceted forum with unlimited opportunity to develop their point, they have failed to recognise an important element to any project; it has to have a point, and argument, a raison d’etre. The “essays” were about why we dream and various styles of dream analysis. There is little if anything about why Arnold Schwarzenegger is an American pop culture icon and an example of the American Dream. The links are scattered and vary in quality and reliability with regard to common research parameters set forth in academic scholarship. There appears to be no real argument, no basis for the project except as an experiment in hypertext technology. Half of the links don’t work, which I think even Thurston would agree, makes the project even less successful. There is no discussion forum or image archive, nor explanation for why the links were there, what purpose each served. The only link that addresses the thrust of what should have been the thesis of a legitimate project is Why Arnold Matters, and in this essay they have the impudence to describe him as “possible Nazi sympathizer”. This example is precisely the reason why serious academics frequently eschew internet based history; lack of reason and evidentiary support. It’s time these authors cut off the legs of their sweatpants and took a good long look at their weakness. More is not always better. I’m not sure “Dreaming Arnold Schwarzenegger” has a place in history at all and I’m frankly surprised that AQ took it on, especially when compared to Castonguay ‘s site and the “Imaging the French Revolution” site.

Censer and Hunt’s “Imaging the French Revolution” succeeds where the Arnold site fails. Here lies a cohesive argument; visual images from history serve to tell us a great deal about the past in multifaceted ways. In what could be referred to “intertextual methodology” by Castonguay, Censer and Hunt discuss the images they link as evidence with footnoted remarks from historians, chroniclers and artists. The site also offers essays written by other scholarly academics who add their own flavour to the argument. The discussions include women, memory, the ambiguity of revolutionary images, and the meaning the artists might have intended the images to promote. The subject matter is definitively academic history, but it is not so lofty to be inaccessible to the general public. The use of images and hypertext works well in this format. Furthermore, the connection between art and history is a reasonable one and has long been accepted by scholars. The viewer seems to get the best of both worlds from this site.

The site invites viewer interaction and interpretation as Staley suggests need be. Censer and Hunt clearly state that they anticipate the viewer finding what they will by exploring the site on their own. It is clear that Censer and Hunt have a viewpoint; perhaps images that conflict with their argument exist. However, it is left to the reader to extrapolate what they wish by choosing which points of the argument to accept or reject. What the authors provide are plausible options, not fantasy or dreams. And while as Staley urges us to remember that what they offer is a view of the past and not the past itself, the viewer can get a well rounded feel for what the past experience might have been like through art created by those who witnessed the era themselves. Perhaps some sound bytes of cannons firing, horses hooves, or crows erupting could have lent more interest and made for a more interactive and immersed experience, but that is mere conjecture on my part. All in all, this is a successful website for anyone who wishes to better understand the period and event known as the French Revolution.