Intertextuality is a beautiful concept. Never heard it previously to this. Never forgetting it after this. Intertextuality. Professor Friend described it as any text of reading that gets its info from other forms of text. Doesn’t it sound beautiful? Okay, maybe its just me.
Learning that “text” does not have to be literal documents was eye opening. It makes sense, though. In previous classes, we talked about Tiktok’s being cited in papers. Yeah, let that sink in. Tiktok’s can be quoted. I know, right. But it is logical, this is the future.
Doug Eyeman references a lot of text in his chapter on the topic. It definitely took me a couple of reads. I agree we should “‘adjust’” the way we approach digital rhetoric. Everything needs to be revised or adjusted as we develop. It’s like growing into your body. You’re not wearing the same clothes you wore when you were 3-years-old. Your get new clothes to fit you as you grow.
Connections
This reminded me of something the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, said all those years ago. Jefferson suggested that every 19 to 20 years we update the Constitution. As we grow, as people and a society, things are bound to change. That’s why it’s so important for us to adjust this important document. Do we do it, though? Absolutely not.
Eyeman threw around the word “we.” “I argue that we […]” but who is “we”? I believe the “we” is anyone who plans on using digital rhetoric on the web. Or anyone who wants to write in digital settings. The web has grown so much since it was first developed. And it will continue. We as a society have been shifitng towards a digital world. We will be constantly developing the web in new ways. And digital rhetoric will begin to fit in these spaces.
Leave a Reply