The site that I plan to evaluate is RedRidingHood: http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/leishman__redridinghood.html
I plan to explain how this site has relevance as a literary text. Though it does lack certain properties of an acutal text, i.e. words, it still possesses certain elements that I find to be approriate. In Birkerts conclusion he explains how the magazine Wired is designed to draw people in with the ideal that “That was then and this is now.” And how “unbroken columns of print suddenly seem like visual molasses.” I find this statement relevant in that since this site lacks visual words and presents a new view on the original tale, that this is not “visual molasses” but rather another approach towards literary texts.
This site does present an extremely feminist view towards the original tale with a few twists. The feminism that exists in this tale has been explored in much depth since the tale came about. I plan to explore a few of the feminist approaches including this site inside my paper.
But the counter argument that I forsee would possibly even come from Birkerts himself, for this site is not exactly a text at all. It does lack words and also the fact that one cannot control the directionality of the site except when wanting to continue forward (not backward). Therefore the fact that there is the possibility that RedRidingHood is not a text lies in the lacking elements the site has. However, the elements that are present that relate to the original fairy tale, in my opinion, give the site credibility as a text.
defining what you mean by ‘appropriate’ for a text will lead to a more specific thesis. you could use Birkerts to do that in contrast, since he tends to view texts with lots of images as inappropriate.
i am also sensing that you see the origin of the tale as appropriate or relevant to a text that might be more visual than textual.