The textual circumstances of digital poetry are shifting due to rising degrees of interaction and the ongoing reduction of boundaries between digital forms of writing. I concur that it might be challenging for contemporary poetry to make allusions to older, analogous arrangements. It is currently challenging to pinpoint specific aesthetic criteria from which to categorize digital poetry’s many forms and styles. The highly defined divisions between states, which were applied to the more archaic works in ancient digital poetry, are still helpful today. In my opinion, the advantage comes from pinpointing certain elements or techniques employed by digital poets.
However, much like digital poetry, this is a highly ephemeral and abstract subject. Many formerly independent forms in Funkhouser’s book’s examples have been combined. This portrays his perspective positively in the context of contemporary digital poetry, in my opinion, and I concur with him. According to the author, digital poetry appears to be a polyphonic and multidimensional culture that does not, as in the past, represent characteristics of nations, faiths, and peoples but somewhat of persons.