Raisch and readings

What was most interesting about the Raisch visit was the literal intertextuality of the focus texts she brought. We've been studying a lot about intertexts which are ehpemeral, which form themselves by the relation of the focus text to the intertexts, but in Raisch's examples, the intertexts were present on the page with the focus texts and form connections unto themselves. The same is true of hyperlinks, and I think, that while Wikipedia may not be the best scholarly source, it would certainly be an interesting focus of scholarly study on intertextuality for that reason--the co-presence of text and intertext literally there on the page.

I found very interesting the Origen reading for today, as it connects much with my own experience. The first time I saw a parallel Bible I was fascinated (a Bible with 4 or more translations in columns next to one another), because in this form, you automatically see what is different, present in one, omitted from another, etc. etc. These sorts of things bring focus to your thinking about the texts themselves and encourage you to probe more deeply the questions raised by the inclusions and omissions--in fact, if I'm writing a devotion or bible study (which I used to do for income), I always like to start by looking at the parallel bible because it immediately draws attention to certain parts of the text. I think the pieces that Raisch brought to class bring up many of the same issues--having the two texts co-present on the page makes immediately apparent what kinds of questions one should be asking about them (Why was this word chosen and not that one? Why is this marked here, but not down here?)

Orr's term of collocution is an interesting one here as well. Orr intends for ITXTY in this respect to be studying people's speech, but I think collocution also happens when you have two written texts aligned as these are. In a way, the two texts "speak together" and it is the product of their joint speech that provides meaning; either one alone is not enough.

That legal proceedings are also highly intertextual doesn't surprise me in the least, and it makes perfect sense that the law was the first discipline to make use of hypertext. Law is nothing if not an intertextual endeavor, with one trying to interpret not only what was said, but also what was meant by what was said and whether the text has a new meaning given its new context. I found the discussion of the two styles of law informative, particularly because as a non-lawyer, it does not seem to me that they are anything other than complementary. I thought Raisch's arguments in favor of students of common law and civil law understanding and interacting with the other only made perfect sense.