In Eyman’s text, “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric“, he speaks on Intertextuality with the help of works by Warnick. Intertextuality can be a tricky concept to understand and even more difficult to try and explain. To put plainly, I believe intertextuality is the connection between texts. Upon further research and reflection, it seems like intertextuality is also a phenomenon that all texts are a product of other texts. Nothing truly stands on its own.
Major Takeaway & A Real Example of a Connection Between Texts
A major takeaway from Eyman’s text is that we can draw on our previous knowledge from old texts to understand new ones almost instantly. Warnick notes that “Contemporary users of Web-based discourse have at their fingertips resources that enable them to seek out information in the moment…” I find myself doing this very often. For example, I saw a post on Instagram about the show Friends which I’ve never watched before. The post referenced a joke that I wasn’t familiar with. Then, I just went on YouTube and watched a couple of clips from the show. By looking up clips, I was able to understand the joke without even having to watch the show in full. I just needed a bit more context and background knowledge to put the pieces together. The use of the internet allows people to make a connection between texts effortlessly.
Need For New Analysis
Eyman then shifts his focus to how online texts are not the same as texts in print. He insinuates that online content can include videos or mediums that are more complex whereas texts in print are usually more straightforward. What I got out of this point that Eyman made is how the internet changes our understanding of texts and how these methods need to be updated. However, I dont exactly agree with him that texts in print are always more straighforward than online texts. Especially if we’re talking about the two paragraphs that he wrote. Those two short paragraphs did not seem straighforward to me at all.
Leave a Reply