Like Eyman, my first instinctual idea of “text” would be printed or literary works. To call any object that felt wrong. Yet, in a way, if you can “read” the rhetorical value of that object (whether it’s a photo, a video, a GIF, whatever), I suppose in a way it is “text”. With regards to digital rhetoric, it makes sense that what we consider as “text” should have a more expansive definition, according to Eyman.
Text, Subtext and Reading
I think of words and phrases such as “subtext” and “reading into something”. The former is when there is meaning that isn’t explicitly stated in the text. However, it can be heavily implied by other context clues. For example, a rainy day to symbolize a character’s death. A messy childhood room to imply what a character’s childhood might have been like. The subtext is most of the time purposefully put there by the creator to create a richer meaning behind the piece of work.
The latter is more about being confronted with a piece of text. Whether that be a book, a TV show, or a speech. Then you derive your own interpretations from what has been said. The interpretation is out of the author’s control. It could be implied or explicit. It’s ultimately up to the reader to decide what the text means by “reading into it”.
Both things revolve around analyzing literary studies, as academic writing requires more explicit stating. But when I bring these things up, I mean to demonstrate that anything can be “read” for its rhetorical value, no matter how it presents itself. That there is always meaning to be gained from all the things that we create and put out into the world because we don’t exist in a vacuum. Without text, there technically wouldn’t be rhetoric to garner.
Leave a Reply