Intertextual Conversation

If there is any sentiment about intertextuality that consistently rings true, it is that it is unavoidable. It is truly everywhere, no matter where one looks. This theme has become gradually more prevalent with every annotated excerpt assigned to us throughout the semester, even as the term draws to a close and crafting an ePortfolio shifts to be the main focus of our endeavors. While there is naturally a slew of synonyms to use when defining intertextuality, or a variety of frameworks and contexts to apply it in, it is impossible to avoid its influence in the creation of a new work. In theory, there is no such thing as a totally “original” piece, as everything, whether directly inspired or not, remixes facets of already existing tropes into something at least somewhat new, which is an underlying theme of the organization of my portfolio and the elements that constitute it.

​

Intertextuality as a principle that nothing is completely original comes from James E. Porter, who defines it by the notion that “all writing and speech… arise from a single network” (Porter 34). His discussion of documents such as the United States’ Declaration of Independence highlights this very sentiment, observing how Thomas Jefferson “was by no means an original framer or a creative genius… he was an effective borrower of traces” (Porter 36). Historical artifacts and documents that are foundational to the very beginnings of the United States as a country do not escape Porter’s vision for what intertextuality means. His specific citation of Jefferson’s pseudo-authorship poses a striking revelation to readers, as in today’s age, there is far more material to copy, sample, or draw inspiration from in a much more accessible fashion. However, Porter intentionally introduces a very real scenario where the same phenomenon occurs, but hundreds of years ago in 1776. This historical context sets up a sense of inevitability with intertextuality’s influence; even in an era where technology was non-existent and direct outsourcing of other material was more complicated due to how much more of an effort it required to even obtain other sources, the very Founding Fathers were unable to produce a completely original work.

​

Following Porter’s definition of intertextuality raises a new question about treading the line of originality in writing. If drawing references from other works is basically unavoidable, at what point does it cross the border of indirect plagiarism instead of just referencing? Author Dustin W. Edwards chimes in by introducing the concept of remixing in literary contexts. Edwards explains remixing in academia as a scenario where a source “explicitly builds upon or repurposes already existing material,” and that there is “rhetorical potential of transforming already-existing materials into new texts for new audiences” (Edwards 42). Edwards’ contextualizing of remixing in a scholarly environment takes a notion that is already familiar to many through pop culture, such as remixing or sampling in music, and is therefore already reframing an existing idea into a new setting and propositioning its benefits and purposes in writing. One of the additional nuances he adds to his definition mirrors Porter’s presentation of such an old historical example as the Declaration of Independence, as he cites ancient Greek philosophers and the concept of mimesis, or imitatio, as christened by the ancient Romans. Despite the names suggesting a direct copy, it is vital to note that “it was not until later in the classical tradition that imitation became prominently known in its highly rhetorical sense: rhetors studying, memorizing, internalizing, recalling, and recasting models” (Edwards 44). The distinction between plagiarism and a simple act of mimicry or remixing is highlighted when put into practice, as building on and emulating prior source material as opposed to simply copying what has already been done establishes a more active sense of understanding and therefore allows for new ideas to be expressed while building on a foundation of what is already existing.

​

While Porter and Edwards focus on the spread of material through intertextuality in a more generalized sense, Henry Jenkins writes about the spread of material in a specifically digitized realm, zeroing in on the spread of memes and social media trends. The ideas of remixing are multiplied tenfold, as in spaces like the internet, virality and popularization of short-form media is easy to replicate, which Jenkin says “fails to consider the everyday reality of communication -- that ideas get transformed, repurposed, or distorted as they pass from hand to hand, a process which has been accelerated as we move into network culture” (Jenkins). With social media applications such as Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest, where algorithms are specifically curated to adhere to each individual’s specific sense of humor, style, interests, and beyond, a digitized space fosters an environment that makes the spread, accessibility, and effects of source material that much more impactful. Jenkins also observes the spread of memes and internet trends as a subcategory of the spread of language, commenting on the infectious spread of what’s trendy like it is a genetic virus. He quotes that “Language seems to 'evolve' by non-genetic means and at a rate which is orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation” (Jenkins). This mimicry of ideas reflects the Greek mimesis or the Roman imitatio, indicating that things as little as phrases or images, or even larger things such as lifestyles, aesthetics, or news articles, are nowhere near safe from the expansion and repurposing of their original material.

​

All of the previous ideas and notions proposed by Porter, Edwards, and Jenkins have particularly stuck with me throughout the semester, and they have all revealed themselves in influencing the choices I have made in concocting my ePortfolio. Similar to the ideas expressed in Porter’s definitions of intertextuality, some of these choices were intentional, and others were not. The unintentional ones gradually revealed themselves once I reflected on how I modeled the ePortfolio aesthetically, but I will touch on that later. First and foremost, I must confess that I programmed the website’s appearance from a base template. I took pre-existing material and turned it into something my own, using it as foundational material to spin my portfolio and organize all the necessary facets into something that was visually appealing to myself and other viewers of the site. This usage of the template, while I obviously changed things like color schemes, information, text boxes, even organization of multiple pages of the site, draw from the ideas in Porter and Edwards’ writings in the sense that I, firstly, took pre-existing material and allowed its influence to guide my creation of the ePortfolio, and secondly, remixed said material into a brand new product, emulating both the template and other basic portfolio formats that have existed before me. Something that was not an intentional choice in the moment also had to do with the organization of the website, although in terms of color schemes and aesthetics. At first, I simply chose to do a pink, softer vibe because that is my favorite color, and I naturally wanted my ePortfolio to serve as a reflection of who I am as closely as possible. However, the more I look at it, the more I realize Jenkins’ ideas of media influence and the spread of trends has seeped into my choices. The soft pink colors, the hearts, the bubbly fonts, and even the bow symbol in my about section follow schemes of popular TikTok-ified aesthetics, a la coquette, “soft girl,” kawaii-core, and even traces of the pink pilates princess vibe. All of these aesthetics are wormholes that I have allowed my algorithm to suck me into, and in the framing of my ePortfolio, the media virus has accidentally taken hold of my creative choices and has made a statement about who I am aesthetically.

​

Although many of the points raised throughout the semester’s readings seemed like they should have been common sense, intertextuality’s influence throughout all spheres of media is something I had never considered until the words were right in front of me. Even despite the numerous readings hammering this underlying idea into my mind and guiding me through the semester’s projects, I still have yet to come to terms that nothing is truly original, whether it is a conscious effort to make it so or not. The choices made in framing my ePortfolio were not entirely intentional, but reflecting on said choices and the accidental nature of it all only goes to solidify the points posed by Porter, Edwards, and Jenkins. While intertextuality is impossible to escape in any application of the word, it guides rhetorical decisions and ultimately serves to shape the world, its messages, and how society chooses to interpret it.