Intertextuality refers to an instance in which one text refers to another text, whether it’s through alluding, quoting, or simply just referring to a specific part in another text. It is important to consider intertextuality in all forms and spaces of literature, including literature that falls onto a digital spectrum. Doug Eyman, in “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric”, believes that there is a distinct difference between literature that appears online versus a physical form of media. He believes that it is important to acknowledge the differences between the two forms of media and their impact. He argues a valid point but how important is it to truly determine the differences between both forms of media? Why is intertextuality really that important in terms of physical media vs digital media?
I acknowledge Eyman’s point and I believe it to be valid. I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be acknowledgment when referencing the differences between physical and digital texts. It might be the same wording and same substance, but the way we interpret and inhale the material is different. I stumbled upon an article, “The Case for Choosing a Physical Book Over a Digital Reader”, written by Alyson Klein. Klein discusses the faults in reading and navigating a text online as opposed to reading a physical copy. A lot of online readers tend to word spot, browse, and scroll through the material rather than interpret it. It’s also common for readers to get distracted and do something other than read the text. I agree with this take as I’ve done the same thing before. I hate reading online and I prefer physical copies because I’m able to really immerse myself without getting distracted. To me, a screen in general is distracting therefore it’s significantly easier to read something put on paper.
Leave a Reply