I think the piece by Bolter and Gruisn really brought up the attention that the medium can really become the message of a text and visa versa depending on how it is represented. For example in the text "Ubiquitous Computing" virtual reality was the medium and the message. it was both because of the sense that you needed to use the medium to understand the message. you could do this by collaborating with reality or having it on it's own but the text itself was the medium, so the computer was a text and a source to release the software of the text.
This piece also allowed the analyzation of the text be become more broad. Because not all text is literal text but could be images or the computerization of images. It allows the identification to be more accessible to the modern world (by it's example) and show how text can be received and show that text can coexist with the real world.
This piece also showed that discourse changed over time. Its like our brains we come up with new ways of thinking so the way that we articulate those thoughts will change with at was well. But this also brings up the problem of not very one being on the same page as discourse, because of their experiences. But i think that helps the development of discourse (our background differences) because it allows us to come up with new ways of thought, text and how we analyze text itself.