Last week, I discussed visual rhetoric. Today for my last blog post, I will discuss intertextuality.
Intertextuality is the relationship between various texts. This refers to the way that texts refer to one another and how they borrow content from other texts. One way this is seen is the use of links in these blog posts. Every week, I refer back to a previous blog or “text” via a link. Sometimes it is more than that and a concept that one post discusses draws from the concepts of the preceding post. These are a couple simple examples of intertextuality.
In relation to digital rhetoric, Ian Bogost talks on how it focuses on traditional media and does not account for computation. This does not appeal to visual rhetoric. Thus, Bogost coins “procedurality”, which defines system processes and includes computer processes. He is responsible for the concept of procedural rhetoric which largely refers to video games. His process highlights the relationship between user and programmer.
Various forms of rhetoric including procedural and visual contribute to digital rhetoric. This also contributes to the concept of intertextuality, since one text can be interpreted in different ways depending on the rhetoric used.
An example that comes to mind for me is books and movies. Both can be considered separate texts. There is a relationship between the book and its film adaptation. The movie refers to and references the novel for the most part. Sometimes it makes its own decisions which stand the movie apart from the original source material. The meaning of the original text (the book) can be changed or reinterpreted through the movie both by the filmmakers and the audience.
Leave a Reply