Intertext is lurking in every corner of written work. We can try to ignore its existence, but its ubiquity lies incarnate in the texts that every writer produces. Texts are interdependent on other texts and we can only understand something as long as we can understand its past. Porter gets so meta as to claim that intertext itself is a text and that every text is intertextual, in one way or another. When writers produce a text, that text represents the discourse community that they are a part of rather than the writers themselves. So Porter suggests that the intertext constrains writing because any writing that is produced creates its own meaning that relates to the intertext. There are many reasons why the boundaries of a discourse community can constrain writing.
For one, the requirement of having to be knowledgeable about a specific discourse community bars outsiders who may not know much from ever joining that community. Maybe gaining entry into a discourse community is strict because writers could change the discourse of that community for the future. Whatever they write has the power to shape how the community evolves, and maybe that is too much power to give to someone who isn’t a dedicated member of that community. So the idea of a lone inspired writer doesn’t exist because the community (the one that they can’t join) is the intertext in this case and writers can’t escape them. No matter what they write, the intertext of the community will be a perpetual part of the writing and the writer. It seems like a bit of a catch-22 in that they want one thing, but can’t afford to give someone (individuality) the resources to do that one thing.
When new writing comes about, the newness of it is not important—it is whether or not writers can look at old documents and bring about different meanings—ideas that have never been thought of before. Thus, they become known as “creative borrowers,” as Porter states. So in the case of the lone inspired writer, are his ideas ever original if they have to fall under certain categories? It’s like nothing he writes could be a surprise because people are expecting a specific thing.
Porter claims that writers can be treated like mere tools of the discourse community, but isn’t that exactly the case? The writers are a tool of their communities because they got their ideas from this community so it’s likely that their work would reflect the ideologies of the community anyway. The readers are a part of this discourse community so they want all writers’ contribution to match their expectations. So in part, being a part of a community makes you responsible to contribute in the same fashion. And another question is whether the writer has any freedom. Creativity and genius-ness is possible, but one has to get out of a discourse community to achieve it. Communities are like memberships and there are always rules—things you can and can’t do and things you can and can’t say—one has to adhere to be a part of a community, but the compromise of that situation is losing their individual voice.
Porter writes that “writing is an attempt to exercise the will, to identify the self within the constraints of some discourse community” (41). And being a part of a community means that there is no individuality. So how does one identify themselves within the community if they’re all joined by the same thing. Isn’t the point of a community to be a part of something bigger instead of being singled out? People as individuals shouldn’t be noticed—at least in a community where its goal is to represent a certain discourse.
But whatever the goal of a community, in our own projects, we all want to be an “effective borrower of traces.” (Porter 36) We work to employ these traces to a new theory so that it can move forward.
I slack, you slack 
Hey!
The aspect of your blog post I really appreciated was the fact that you discuss the individuality within a community. While I might be going out on a limb here and this could totally just apply to me, but I feel like it is much easier to feel like a unique individual and harder to feel like one belongs within a community. Especially in our fields as writers, writing majors, and English majors, it is very easy for us to focus on our individual growth and progress within our career fields. It is harder for us to want to join the English community and feel included in a collegiate community. Especially when the job of a writer is to basically represent the community they are apart of, I feel like the writer and their products should represent the mass, not the individual.
And I understand that isn’t the most fun thing to hear as a writer. But a job is a job. If your job as a writer is to represent a community then you cannot just represent yourself in a certain situation with others revolving around you. This may be a reality, just like the reality of intertext, ignore. This line of thinking does not mean that a writer cannot find themselves in their own writing! I don’t want people to take my thoughts on this and get all “Death of the Author” on me, because the writer is still part of the community so naturally when talking about the community, they are talking about them self. It can be a confusing topic but I think you do such a good job of taking something from the articles and relating them to one another as well as aspects outside of the assigned readings. Yay rhetoric!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Wangmo!
Your post really got me thinking. Its interesting, a writer has to write for a discourse community in order to get recognized. A writer has to build on existing intertexts in the community, which make it difficult to express their own individuality. I like how you mention that writers have the power to evolve and change the discourse community, but whatever they write has to be closely tied with the ideas already within the community or else they won’t have any exigence in the community. This made me think of how evolution of a discourse community works. It has to slow, because writers that have the power to change the community have to stay “within the constraints of some discourse community” as Porter says. This made me think of a bubble representing discourse communities. I writer has to stay inside the bubble to appeal to the community, but they can expand the bubble outward by presenting new ideas in their writing that is not too far out from what already exists. If a writer writes completely outside the bubble, they could show complete individuality in there work but they will not be heard or have any influence on the discourse community. All in all, great work, I enjoyed reading it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Wangmot!
I loved your thoughts on writing in a community and how doing so can influence your creation. In particular, your quote “Maybe gaining entry into a discourse community is strict because writers could change the discourse of that community for the future. ” got me thinking, and relating back to the Fisher text as well. It seems like these two ideas- intertext and the narration paradigm- are really intertwined. If you think about what Fisher stresses about the rational-world paradigm in current day rhetorics “so one class of citizens can always be superior to another”. Isn’t this similar to how some writers or contributors are not allowed in to a certain discourse community, for fear that it may change the rhetoric in the future? I’m not much of a politics person, but I find myself relating much of this back to the current state of affairs- the ‘higher ups’ in our government seem to have access to the abilities to make changes and may or may not be influenced by those beneath them, but what were to happen if one of those ‘beneath them’, the middle-class American worker with no experience in politics or government, stepped in to the highest and most selective discourse community- and how would it forever change the rhetorics (or, would it?). I find myself thinking, if the products we create, like these very blog posts, are all love children of other works and influences, how do we know when the real story (the rational) and our story (the narrative, or irrational) meet, or again, do they?
Thank you for your thoughts, I enjoyed reading your blog!
Slack on!
-Donita
LikeLiked by 1 person