In Porter's piece, i really liked the idea about how all texts are interdependent. We understand something we read in light of what we have read before hand. People write what they write in light of what they have read and how they understood it. This definitely reminded me of T.S. Eliot and Tradition, which i learned about in my lit crit class last year and probably one of the only things i really understood in that class. does this mean all writing is unoriginal though? i don't think so.
I thought the part about texts containing other texts was really interesting. Hearing someone tell someone else to 'open the door' contains the assumption that that person is more capable of opening the door at that moment. Hearing the phrase "once upon a time" automatically indicates the beginning of a fictitious tale.
With the Johnson-Eilola piece...that was a rough one. I basically never want to have to worry about copywriting in my life because it seems very complicated and there seemed to be a lot of court cases described. One thing i found interesting was the discussion of search engines in the piece...i never really thought of those as writing...
Apart from interesting do you think it is dangerous at all? Intertextuality defines our human experience but on that note is human experience denounced with the realization of a complete lack of originality? It is an interesting idea that our illusions our not our own but rather the shadows of past ideas projected by our subconscious
ReplyDeleteWhen one comes to think about it, all writing is original and un-original at the same time. We have always been subconsciously influenced by outside factors that ultimately define who we are and how we communicate and how we present ourselves (especially through our writing). At the same time, all writing is unique, as it always comes from our own personal thoughts and experiences, unless someone plagerizes (blatently, not unintentionally).
ReplyDelete