Abstract of Nicholas Burbules’s “Rhetoric of the Web: Hypertexting and Critical Literacy.”
by Mike Peterson

Description of Article
Burbules starts his article by posing what he calls the perennial question: is reading hypertext something new, or is it the same as reading traditional texts? Throughout his article, he answers this by saying they are the same, yet different—while certain skills apply to both functions, hypertext comes with its own set of challenges and idiosyncrasies. One such unique trait of hypertext is the link.

The hyperlink can be compared loosely to citations within traditional texts: they point us to someplace else where additional information might be found. The difference, of course, is that hyperlinks are quick and easy: a couple of clicks and you’re there—no time and money-consuming ventures of finding or buying or photocopying books and articles.

But these links shouldn’t be uncritically viewed as mere shortcuts. Readers need to remember that links don’t all have the same semic relationships, links are a man-made construction, and links are not simple associations of two givens.

Another trait of hypertext is that it doesn’t have to follow the Outline and Syllogism formula of traditional texts—through hyperlinks, it can take advantage of other rhetorical possibilities such as Bricolage and Juxtaposition.

But hypertext also comes with disadvantages and therefore ushers a greater need for readers to develop a more reflective and critical approach to the way they read. First, there is the problem of a surfeit of information, which increases a reader’s need to make rapid judgments. This leads to the writer’s assumption that a reader’s attention must be seized and held quickly. The second problem that there is a “blur of distinctions of relative credibility.” And the third problem is a lack of distinction between computer use as an intellectual tool and that of a mere plaything (which results in a diminished capacity to concentrate on less-stimulating projects).

Burbules goes on to list a few tropes, which he equates with the different types of hyperlinks: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, antistatis, identity, sequence and cause-and-effect, and catachresis. He does this because he wants “links to be seen as rhetorical moves that can be evaluated and questions for their relevance.”
Burbules wants readers to move away from the “simple consumer orientation” of the web. If we understand the limits and possibilities of the web, its rhetorical conventions, and learn to be critical readers of hyperlinks, the web can go from being a “frightening medium of manipulation and distortion” to an “opportunity for discovery and synthesis.”


Comments and Questions
I’m not a hundred-percent convinced that such a thorough understanding of hyperlinks is needed to be a critical reader of hypertext. It would take a master rhetorician to determine the different tropes that each link reflects. What I think is important, though, is to understand that links are man-made creations, and that not every link is created equally. There are a lot of things vying for our attention on the Internet, and I agree with Burbules that we shouldn’t be uncritical consumers of everything put before us. Do you think Burbules is splitting hairs over the tropes?

I drew a lot of good points from this article that I will use in teaching my E102 class. Burbules discusses the importance of recognizing the difference between credibility and glitter—while flashy and catchy sites are appealing, they are often nothing more than fluff void of content. That isn’t to say credibility lacks flashiness—a reputable site can still have ad banners, video and audio links, but those links will more likely be for content rather than spectacle—no linking for linking’s sake.

This article was written ten years ago. Burbules predicts that “the aura of credibility of any particular hypertext on the Web sill be diminished, since there will almost certainly be more garbage than work of quality in this Brave New Self-Publishing World.” I say, “Welcome to 2007!”

I watched a news program recently about the dangers of multi-tasking. The program concluded that multitasking isn’t always a good thing: it results in a lot of surface-level action with little retention or deep understanding. In other words, you can carry on four conversations at once via e-mail, telephone, text-messaging, and face-to-face interaction, but only so much of that information can be processed. I thought of that as I read this article. As we are plagued with an increasing plethora of information on the Internet, how are we allocating our attention? Do we read just bits and pieces of articles, gloss over summaries and abstracts, and watch/listen to decontextualized media clips? Is this causing a reduction in our deeper comprehension of the world? Is wisdom being replaced with a cluttered-head of random tidbits? In other words, if I have a half hour to read the news, am I better off skimming a couple dozen articles and watching small clips hear and there, or would I be better off reading one or two “complete” articles?