Ironically, Doug Eyman’s words on intertextuality are under seven layers of the thing that he is describing. He buries his thoughts under quotes and paraphrases to another author. Eyman finally displays the conclusion that new methods of studying rhetoric must be formed for the Web. At the same time, he says that we should make some sort of effort to also align older methods of rhetoric to how texts are networked nowadays. He even brings up a point about preserving and discussing Web history. I can’t argue with that.
What is intertexuality exactly? Luckily, Eyman’s textbook chapter gives an easy definition. It “shows that a given text always relates to preceding or simultaneously occurring discourse.” As it happens, this pops up often in academic writing. Authors create their text based on precedent. The author is always going to have to prove that they know what the precedent is. That’s why someone like Eyman will keep referring back to Warnick. As a matter of fact, I’m referring back to Eyman. Intertextuality isn’t too difficult.
And intertextuality excels with hyperlinks.
How would one know that there was even a textbook chapter by Doug Eyman? Simple: they can click on it, scroll down, and see what I’m talking about. Hyperlinks are perhaps the most prominent convenience that the Web has to offer. Nowadays, HTML isn’t even a necessity to know how to hyperlink. One simply highlights their text and plops in their URL. Intertextuality has never been easier.
In the previous blog, I made the point that an average Internet user subconsciously picks up writing habits. When they even do something as casual as referencing a TV show or movie, that’s intertextuality. Memes are texts in themselves, and often require prior knowledge of something (which is why many current memes have short lifespans). Without knowing it, everyone who uses the Internet in a certain way has practiced a vital part of writing.
Eyman might make intertextuality seem more complicated than it really is. It really isn’t that deep.
Leave a Reply