This definition gives more attention to the "literary" aspect of e-lit. It emphasizes that e-lit are ultimately "works of art" or in other words, e-lit is "born digital" but in the context of artist/writers exploiting the capabilities of digital or electronic devices and mediums

I think that by analyzing how the terms that describe electronic literature have been used, how they have changed and have overlapped through time, Rettberg brings to light how elusive a definition of electronic literature seems to be, given how broad and versatile it is. It seems like a paradox, the difficulty in defining the phenomenon creates the difficulty of naming it and so the difficulty in tracing its history in a clear way.

This definition seems to interact well with that given on the last link. What I think binds the two definitions together is the "born digital" aspect of e-lit and the idea that e-lit can be experienced through multiple mediums or devices, so long as they are electronic or in an electronic context.

I think the literary aspect that defines electronic literature is being ever changing, ever evolving, and foremost social or socially developed (as are digital technologies). Which brings me to a notion of electronic literature: A literary genre or type of literary work that has the ability to absorb the qualities of newer technologies in order to modify or update the context in which it is produced, distributed and received, presenting itself as an interdisciplinary and versatile new kind of literary language that has merged with the (digital) tools that created it so that it is now indistinguishable.