3. Foster discusses the "dialogue between... texts." He refers to this as "intertextuality." What is the significance, value, and effect of this textual connection? How does it inform and enhance our reading experiences? Is intertextuality intentional or serendipitous? How does it operate? How might it relate to the "one big story?" How might it relate to archetypes, symbols? When have you noticed intertextuality at work in the "real" world? What is the "mythic level?"
Intertextuality is the basis of analysis for literature. As fundamental here as functional harmony is to analyzing music, as the five flavors are to describing food, and as fundamental as color palettes and artistic styles are to describing paintings. This pretense for understanding is what allows different interpretations and frankly classes like AP Literature to exist. Without a broad interplay between texts, these different understandings don't exist. The intertextual relationship is what allows symbols to exist in the way they do now, as a consistent landmark in texts. It informs readers in that way as well. This vocabulary of symbols is what allows readers to make simple interpretations. Through the inversion and subversion and ironic use of symbols a more meta-understanding can take place. The author intentionally uses a symbol the opposite way to evoke a more visceral reaction.
Intertextuality is fundamental to the understanding of literary and artistic archetypes. This broad relationship is what provides the framework of understanding that allows for archetypal readings of symbols. Rain means x because it meant x so many other times in other works. This intertextual relationship also exists to be thwarted, as previously discussed. Snow normally means x but here it means y, just the opposite of x. This sense of surprise or subversion gives literature and other archetypal mediums their staying power. Cliches form and are then broken with ironies which then become clichés which leaves literature about where it is now.
I like the comparisons with Intertextuality, it shows how important Intertextuality is for Literature. Symbolism is one of the many ways to leave the reader to use their imagination and piece together what it could possibly mean in the text. The usage of throwing off the reader with new meanings of the symbolism shows a creative progress that takes time and is placed to challenge the readers creative thinking.Cliches are often present in literature but when broken with ironies i feel they add new depth to the piece.I wonder if readers appreciate the cliches more or the ironies, and if the reader can easily one or the other better?
ReplyDeleteI like how you included the analogies of color pallets for painting to explain how important intertextuality is to the understanding of literature. It implies that in n visual representation of ideas intertextuality could be applied as well. For instance, blue normally represents sadness and red represents anger.
ReplyDelete