Memorials are used across the world to convey a wide array of messages from hope and inspiration to devastation and sorrow. One intriguing type of this display is a web memorial, which is written and published online. Because it is online, it adds different benefits, such as accessibility, but yields equivalent disadvantages, like durability. Aaron Hess, in his article “In Digital Remembrance: Vernacular Memory and the Rhetorical Construction of Web Memorials,” examines 9/11 web memorials and their use of rhetoric. However, before he dives into analyzing the individual websites, he gives us an overview of web memorials.
One key item that should be noted about web memorials is the various types of interactions with us as the readers, specifically vertical text and videos. By yielding these two different forms of communication, the author allows us to interpret the memorial in whatever way we deem most effective. For example, if you are not interested in reading a long article about the attacks, you can skip down to later in the text where there are short quotes from eyewitnesses. Additionally, if you just are not in the mood to read anything, you can watch a video and still get an impression of the devastation this terrorism caused.
Other large point of contention regarding web memorials is the question of superiority. One web memorial Hess analyzes is called “Mike’s 9/11 Memorial Page.” This website claims to have won national awards in recognition of its tribute. However, what makes one memorial better than the other? Shouldn’t they all be considered great, because of what they stand for? I think that it is somewhere in between. Take two hypothetical memorials, for instance. One contains pictures of funerals and quotes from eyewitnesses and family members of those who died in the tragedy. The other memorial is wrought with statistics and quotes from government officials. Which one is more effective? Some say it is a no-brainer that the first one is better, because it focuses more on the lost lives. Contrarily, others think that the second is better because it is more fact-based and official. The point is, it depends on who is reading and experiencing the memorial. As the adage goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” What strikes one person might be ignored by another. Overall, although it may have won awards, that does not mean it is a better memorial, necessarily; it only means that there are people who think it emphasizes some parts of the tragedy extremely well.
Lastly, vernacular is a key feature of web memorials. On real life statues and memorials, the rhetoric often features an official tone and proper language. Contrastingly, because anyone can make a website, the language used in web memorials is typically vernacular. By using vernacular, it is often easier for the audience to relate to the writer, because they feel as if they could be saying this. When looking at memorials, it is difficult to relate to the speakers, because they employ elevated language, in which nobody typically speaks, and is sometimes difficult to understand. Vernacular makes memorials more personal and, to many people, more impactful.
Overall, I think that web memorials are an interesting type of memorial. Although they are not as popular, possibly due to the fact that you do not usually find them unless you are looking for them (unlike memorials like the Washington Monument that can be seen from ten blocks away), they are often more efficient in conveying emotion.
Eloquentia Perfecta 
November 30, 2016 at 3:33 am
With the migration of monuments to the internet as opposed to the physical world, the common person has the chance to participate in monument-building. Consequentially, there may be an abundance of monuments commemorating any one tragedy. Jacob cogently points out that this creates a type of competition between monuments, and thus the question arises as to what makes one monument superior to another. Jacob writes that this is impossible to tell. However, I disagree with him on this point. People do not wish to judge monuments simply because of the strong emotions involved. Allowing the fear of invalidating a person’s subjective experience to stop someone from judging the quality of monuments does great disservice to the dead. They deserve only the finest memorials, and it falls upon us living to fulfill this dream. Mollycoddling and nannying have no place when it comes to civic duty–this is no middle school arts and crafts class.
The effectiveness of any object can be determined by how well it fulfills its stated goals. Since a monument is primarily epideictic in nature, it’s end concerns the elicitation of a response from the beholder of the monument through the appeal to traditional societal values. The memorials to tragedies of the past invoke the epideictic as a call to action for the citizenry. That which the citizens hold sacred is under attack, and therefore radical action is warranted. The online 9/11 memorials all attempt to achieve a response from the viewer by calling on his or her patriotism. How effectively a website uses the tools presented to it to make the viewer feel patriotic is the metric that we can use to judge its efficacy qua monument. In conclusion, it is really quite simple to determine what makes a monument good, and the valuation of monuments is a task worth undertaking because the dead deserve nothing less.
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 10:10 pm
I really enjoy your comment, Kevin. Originally when I read the article I had the same line of thinking. I figured that if someone simply made a web memorial with little thought or effort that it would be disrespectful. For example, if a 9/11 memorial just stated “9/11 is a tragedy that will always be remembered” and nothing else, this surely would not do justice to other memorials that are elaborately laid out with the names of victims and such. However, as the discussion progressed, it was brought up that everybody has their own opinion. While I may think one is better because it focuses on images, you may think one is better because it has more first-hand accounts. For this, we would each have our reasoning: pictures must portray the truth, because they cannot lie, but first-hand accounts make it more personal. Neither of us are necessarily wrong or right, because it’s our own view and opinion. Regardless of all this, I think we both are right in some respects. I agree that some memorials everyone can agree are superior to others. However, there is no way to select a single memorial that is the singular best, because of differing values and opinions people innately hold.
LikeLike
December 5, 2016 at 8:50 pm
I think the idea of web memorials is intriguing in light of modern technology, specifically Facebook, other types of social media, and sites like GoFundMe. Not only is it easier to disseminate the message to your own followers, but the share function on Facebook can then exponentially increase the exposure it can get. Web memorials, like those for Tamir Rice, can reach millions of people within days and are much more public. They can even be monetized/be used for donations to the family for medical and funeral expenses. It seemed it Jacob’s presentation the ones we saw were much more private and it is interesting to see the dichotomy.
LikeLike
December 5, 2016 at 8:57 pm
The idea of web memorials is one that is fairly new in idea. Individuals of older generations might feel that a web memorial is not as acceptable as a physical one and some might even feel that the idea is unacceptable as a whole. I also found the idea of comparing different types of web memorials to be quite interesting. It is completely a matter of opinion for one to decide which type of memorial they find more appealing. Some individuals would find images of the attack to be inconsiderate to those who died, while others may feel that images of the attack are important in showing our rebirth as a country.
LikeLike