When I read the article Intertextuality, it was one of the hardest things to understand. At first, I felt that I was reading something that was just words thrown together aimlessly. I had to return to the beginning over and over again. And honestly, I don’t know if I fully understand the point now, but this is an attempt at it:
Intertextuality Overview
Doug Eyman’s article section on intertextuality informs us on Warnick’s view of intertextuality in online and classical/print spaces. Eyman introduced us to the potentially different roles in which readers may play in the context of intertextuality and how they may interpret things differently in an online setting compared to a physical one in the world of literature. As it is, the differences I found, and that were shown between the two spaces, weren’t clear. However, there were arguments brought up about the nature of the online and physical textual spaces being different. On top of this, traditional ways of writing were seen as having gaps that had a need to fill. This is where online writing could possibly come into play. It introduces more of the need for having intertextuality involved between these two areas.
Thoughts on Intertextuality
The way I thought about this article was a mess. I couldn’t string together all of what I was reading for a while. However, after the third read, I gathered everything I had said previously. I think that intertextuality is essential in the evolution of literature. As a subject that constantly changes, due to media and generational differences, English has a need for adaptability while also keeping a “preservation and a sense of historical trajectory…” I feel like we tend to ignore this fact. It’s good to keep this in mind because of the exposure to concepts like Intertextuality. As a whole, it develops our writing and understanding of the deeper topics in literature.
Leave a Reply