This idea differs from the other definitions as it focuses on the structure of the created e-lit rather then the art form. The underpinnings are based on the "text/algorithmic interaction inherent in all digital technology". This then is the basis of an understanding of e-lit, it barest form, the structure upon which it was created.

The argument Jill Walker Rettberg is making is that it is impossible to quantify how many works of e-lit are available at any given time, and even seems to argue that, to a point, a true definition of e-lit can't be obtained. What one person accepts as e-lit, may not be agreed upon by another individual. What is at stake is the inability for a true and thorough definition of e-lit.

This, to me, is the most important aspect in what makes e-lit, e-lit. It can't be fully experienced and understood outside of the digital medium.

I find this statement interesting as there are those who believe that sound art can itself be a type of electronic literature. Sound art at its most basic level is narrative. Our human ancestors needed sound to survive, and the first traditions of storytelling were aural.