(Thurs’ Lecture on 27th October 2011)
The word “intertextuality”
is derived from the Latin “intertexto”, which means ‘to intermingle while
weaving’. Intertextuality is a term, whom was first introduced by Bulgarian-French
Semiotician Julia Kristeva in the late sixties.
This quote by Graham Allen,
titled ‘Intertextuality’ in ‘The Literary Encyclopedia’, “The
fundamental concept of intertextuality is that no text, much as it might like
to appear so, is original and unique-in-itself; rather it is a tissue of
inevitable, and to an extent unwitting, references to and quotations from other
texts.” Its quite interesting, it means something that we created or wrote or
drawn or any type of verb, aren’t ours to begin with, in fact it would be influenced
or possibly mimic by something or someone in the past that we never knew or
subconsciously knew, something that built up from the past to now. Its like
information are being recycled, it’s the same but in different manners as it
was carried through the time from the beginning to now.
As the word ‘text’ suggests,
originally related to literary culture (novels, poetry, etc.), but has since
developed application to cultural artefacts in general - to films, fashion,
product design, games, etc.
Two kinds of
intertextuality:
• unconscious - true
intertextuality: beyond author’s control
• (self-)conscious - what Kristeva
calls ‘the banal sense of “the study of sources”’ (Kristeva Reader, p.111)
Which now bring us to
authorship and originality of the Intertextuality,
(this part is copied from
the powerpoint slide as I think its really good and well explained)
Traditionally, focus has
been on the character of the author (the inspired creator) and the work (as
unique production). Intertextuality:
• shifts
the emphasis from ‘author’ to ‘reader’
• views
the work as part of an infinite web of other works, not simply on its own terms
This includes:
•
remakes, sequels, prequels within same media
•
translations between media, e.g. novel to film, film to computer game (and vice
versa)
•
transition between genres, e.g. Seven Samurai remade as Magnificent Seven
• relation
of artefacts within a genre group, e.g. between different episodes of the same
TV soap opera, or between different TV soap operas
The following are crucial to
understanding intertextuality:
• nothing
is truly original (in the sense of unique, pristine, one-off)
• authors
can’t control the ways in which their works are read and understood
• authors
can’t even fully control the content of their works: inevitably there will be
meanings they didn’t intend.
So basically it means
everything we do (intertextuality speaking) aren’t original, this topic kind of
really make me think, it’s like everything I do or say were already spoken by
someone else in the past. It’s weird to look in this point of view, if I was to
define this “intertextuality”, I would say, “we are currently making a new
footprint step, continuing the footprints that was made behind us”, I hope that
would make sense. But the important thing is that I do understand what
intertextuality means!
The next part is from Ivan in his notes.
Hypertext
– It is possible that the rise of the digital has intensifed the processes of
intertextual mixing, in particular the ‘hypertextual’ linking of media forms
such as the internet:
‘Perhaps the most obvious
and potentially far-reaching application of intertextual theory and practice in
recent years, however, has come in the realm of information technology… A
hypertext materially appears to demonstrate its lack of autonomy with regard to
meaning. It dramatically opens itself out to the intertextual, disturbing that
chronological, consumerised approach to reading that Kristeva and Barthes were
so keen to challenge…’ (Graham Allen)
What a reality check that
was! Why do I think that? because this quote above is reminding me how time
does really travel through, changing so incredible fast at a increasing speed,
the technology in our society are getting better and better, stronger even, but
also it reminded me that now it slightly lost the true values of what we used
to had in old time.
Now
im ending this post with Ivan’s last quote to this lecture (kind of symbolic
don’t you agree?) “Confounding the realist agenda that “art imitates life”,
intertextuality suggests that art imitates art.” (Chandler)
