In the first reading I did—The Evolution of Web-site Genres by Eva-Maria Jakobs—seems to
discuss the concept of intertextuality. The first sentence she addresses the
question of technology in everyday lives and what is new about them (354). Then
she goes on to discuss texts and their evolution into the Internet. The words
aren’t new. The language isn’t new. If a restaurant has their menu in print (in
house) and then they put up a website and put the menu online, does that change
the writing? Does it make it new? Then she goes as far as naming a practice
hypertextuality and that really just parallels her theory with
intertextuality—which then does not make it orginal either. Then Sosnoski, in Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines, discusses
this concept of printed text to digital. He talks about the preferences of
people who are reading. When he wrote a paper and sent it to a friend, he was
asked to provide a paper copy to facilitate that individual’s preference and he
argues against it, but then he implies he actually prefers paper too. As time
progressed he found himself reading off a screen more and more. So my point
with both these writers on this is that the transgression of making the printed
text into a digital form doesn’t necessarily make it new writing, but rather it
appeals to new groups of people by giving them access through their preference,
say if a person was to want to eat out or order ahead rather than dine in.
Perhaps, a critic would like to see the menu prior to reviewing an
establishment. Sosnoski states,
“hypertexts are not given the same authority as printed ones because textual signatures
become blurred in the unending surge of intertextuality called the World Wide
Web” (171). I would have to strongly agree with this statement. I think with
Internet is a huge conglomeration of other published works, paraphrasing of
those works, essays about those works, and other unoriginal constructs—hence
why plagiarism is such a big deal online and why as scholars “dependable”
sources are required for citation. On the other hand, I would strongly disagree
about hypertext as a means for reading faster. I think writing online (such as
news) may generally be shortened with a link “to get the full story”, but
digitally it is harder to read or notate and therefore takes much more time. I
hate reading digital—I have done several semesters with a tablet or kindle and I
find it convenient for the lack of carrying 100 books around, but there is
something to be said about the “feel” of the paper and turning the page. So I can
get where these writers are coming from too. I prefer paper, but find myself in
front of digital text all the time.
I agree with a lot of what you said based on these articles. I've always preferred physical to digital text, but carrying large volumes from one class to another is such a burden. Also, for a number of courses, books tend to get really expensive. Who wants to spend hundreds of dollars on a hardback book they will use for only one semester? I always tell myself I'll save my books for my personal library to use later in my life and career, but I'm not sure I even believe myself in this regard. There's a chance, but I'd rather just download the much more inexpensive digital editions to get me through the rest of my time at MSU--especially because homework, papers, even tests have moved primarily to the computer platform.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that true authorship gets lost in the internet because so much of what we read on there is an excerpt of some sort and isn't in its original context. The problem is, the internet just makes it easier for students and professionals to get things done in a timely matter and move on to the next task. It's an unfortunate truth. Time is of the essence.