Intertextuality
Inevitability
of arts from inter-textuality Mohammad Khosravi Shakib.
Department of Persian Language and Literature, Human Science
Faculty, Lorestan University, I. R. Iran. E- Mail: Khosravi_shakib@yahoo.com.
Accepted 29 November, 2012
Kristeva
coined the term, intertextuality in 1966, and since that time intertextuality
has come to have almost as many meanings as its users. It is no small task for
this paper to clarify what intertextuality means for Kristeva and her
mentor/colleague, Roland Barthes before criticizing their concept of
intertextuality and its application in interpretation. Because no rational and
coherent concept of intertextuality is offered by Kristeva and Barthes or by
their Epigoni, it will be concluded that intertextuality should be treated
using lexicon of sincere and intelligent humanists. This work will discuss and
analyze some types and theories of intertextuality, with examples. These
examples would be based on the definitions discussed in this paper, because it
is discovered in this research that there are conflicting views among scholars
on this topic. For instance, while some authors consider pictures as texts,
others do not. At the end of the work, it will be taken that any text is a new
tissue of past citations. Bits of code, formulae, rhythmic models, fragments of
social languages etc are passed into the text and are redistributed within it,
for there is always language before and around the text. Intertextuality, the
condition of any text whatsoever, cannot of course be reduced to sources or
influences of problem; intertext is a general field of anonymous formulae whose
origin can scarcely be ever located; of unconscious or automatic quotations,
given without quotation marks.
NTRODUCTION
Intertextuality
is a word coined by Julia Kristeva, a French linguist who has written much on
this topic. This word has a broader meaning in today′s context than the
theories she expounds in her seminal work on intertextuality which are
"word, dialogue and novel". Her notion of Intertextuality refers to
the literal and effective presence in a text of another text. ‘’A text’’,
according to her, ‘’is a permutation of texts, an Intertextuality in the space
of a given text, in which several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect
and neutralize one another” (Allen, 2000). Kristeva writes that horizontal axis
(subject-addressee) and vertical axis (text-context) coincide, bringing to
light an important factor: each word (text) is an intersection of word (texts)
where at least one other word (text) can be read (Kristeva, 1986). In Bakhtin′s
work, these two axes, which he calls dialogue and ambivalence, are not clearly
distinguished. Yet, what appears as a lack of rigor is in fact an insight first
introduced into literary theory by Bakhtin (1981). Any text is constructed as a
mosaic of quotation; it is the absorption and transformation of another. The
notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic
language is read as at least twice.
TYPES
OF INTRTEXUALITY
It must be
analyzed firstly two major types of Intertextuality, which are ekphrasis and
iconotext. Ekphrasis was defined by Tom Mitchel, Grant Scott and James
Hefferman as "the verbal representation of visual representation"
while David Carrier sees it as a "verbal 2 Int. J. English Lit.
re-creations of visual artwork" (Wagner, 1996, p.10). artwork"
(Wagner, 1996). By this definition, both authors mean that ekphrasis comes into
being when a writer describes a visual object such as painting or sculpture
with a verbal media such as a novel, poem, or other writings. This can be seen
in any literature that tries to describe or portray painting and sculpture, as
seen below: -The description of Achilles′s shield in Homer’s Iliad
-Shakespeare’s The rape of Lucree -Esfandiar Blindness in Shahnameh of Ferdoosi
in the Persian literature The underlying point here, however, is that the above
examples are pieces of literature that describe visual art works. This can also
be seen in the poetic description of works of arts, mostly painting in a
literary mode, and is the subject of James Hofferman′s recent perception survey
of a body of literature from Homer to Ashbery, that corroborates the struggle
between WORD and IMAGE.
According to Barthes, all ekphrasis is
notional, and seeks to create a specific image that is to be found only in the
text as its "resident alien" (Barthes, 1973). Ekphrasis stages a
paradoxical performance, promising to give voice to the allegedly silent image
even while attempting to overcome the power of the image by transforming and
inscribing it. For instance, painting does not have voice but when one
describes painting in writing, he is intentionally or unintentionally, directly
or indirectly giving voice to this painting. This brings us to the second
category of intertextuality called iconotext. It is the use of (by way of
reference or allusion, in an explicit or implicit way) an image in a text or
vice versa. Micheal Nerlich defines it as a work of art made up of visual and
verbal signs, such as Evelyne Sinnasamy′s novel with photographs, la femme se
decouvre, in which text and images form a whole (or union that cannot be
dissolved. But Alain Montandon sees it as a Work of arts in which writing and
the plastic element present themselves in an inseparable totality. Iconotext
can also exist in such works in which one medium is only implied, example, the
reference to a painting in a fictional text (Barthes, 1973). Examples can be
found in most newspapers, where articles sometimes carry pictures (Santaella,
1998). It can also be seen in story like One Thousand and One Night in which
pictures are used in various parts of the story to give image to the writing.
It should be noted that the said novel has been reproduced as film, but we will
come to that later when discussing film as an example of intertextuality.
SOME
THEORY OF INTERTEXTUALITY
Here, this paper wants to discuss the theories
of intertextuality by Plato, Aristotle and Roman theorists, while giving some
examples based on the understanding of the author. First theory is the Theory
of imitation. According to Roman theorists, imitation presupposes reference to
a pre-existent reality which is concrete as well as textual. Apart from the
above authorities, Quintilian remarks that imitation is not repetition; it is
an highlighting in which by reading and writing, the translator declares
his/herself, while also engaging in a process of self-alienation. Joel
Weinheimer argues that an imitation has no independent or autonomous essence.
It is neither a copy nor an original. Now in the case of platonic imitation,
the poet always copies an earlier act of creation, which is itself already a
copy. Plato’s theories of poetry highlight intertextual relation. Certainly,
the work of art, to Plato is not autonomous but crossed; for example, by
various references to social knowledge like military tactics; divination,
statecraft. Plato’s theory can be supported by most of the poems written as a
result of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington DC. We all know
what happened, including the poets. It would not like to limit Plato′s theory
to poetry; it can also be seen in other literariness like films. For instance,
the film "The rise and fall of Idi Amin" which portrays the brutal
and dictatorial regime of Idi Amin in post independent Uganda (Idi Amin was a
totalitarian Ugandan leader, who was widely known for his brutality against his
opponents. He was deposed from power in a military coup). They are many films
about the first and second world wars, and the Persian Gulf War. In all these
cases, we know what happened and we still watch and appreciate the film version
of the events. These examples can help to explain Plato’s theory of imitation.
According to Still and Worton (1990), Aristotle’s theory of imitation is rather
different from Plato’s; for Aristotle, dramatic creation is the reduction, and
hence intensification, of a mass of texts known to the poet, and probably to
the audience as well. He holds that we learn, with great pleasure, through
imitating, other than our instinct to enjoy works of imitation; it is inborn
instinct (Still and Worton, 1990).
Both Cicero and Quintilian emphasize that
imitation is not only a means of forging one′s discourse but it is a
consciously intertextual practice (Bakhtin, 1986). This is so, because by
imitating a text, one tends to mix one’s ideas with the ideas contained in the
imitated text, thus leading to a product of hybridity. All the theories
discussed above are similar to the author’s point of view. They all underline
the fact that imitation has to do with texts known to the authors. It is
logical that one can not imitate something one does not know about. A good
example of an imitated work is the play of king Lear of Sheakeaspear which is
supposed to be copied from a Persian great tragedy called Feridoon in Shahnameh
and transplanted in some mythical context. The theory of quotation is the
second theory of intertxuality. Imitation leads us to the theory of quotation,
which is a common practice in academic work. According to Kristeva, reading is
aggressive participation and also that the reader escapable strives to
incorporate the quotation into the unified textuality which makes the text a
semiotic unit. The reader thus seeks to read the borrowing not only for its
semantic context but also fpr its topological or metaphoric function and
significance. It should be noted that one can find quotations in books and
articles without a quotation signs, and if one has no knowledge about these
quotations, one could read such work without knowing that it is borrowed from
other people’s material. For instance, in the film "Star Trek"
Shakespeare was quoted on many occasions. A case in point is "Sein oder
nicht sein (to be or not to be)" as in Hamlet.
Intertextuality
in literature
Let us now discuss examples of intertextuality in African
literature by differentiating between African men′s and African women′s
literatures. This is because there exists an interesting parallel in both
literatures. This technique of intertextuality in African literature is called
writing back. Men′s literature A number of European who spent time in Africa as
missionaries, tradesmen, adventurers and colonial officials and even some who
never set foot on the Africa continent wrote novels set in Africa. Their
statements about African culture and people are deeply rooted in the colonial
mentality which is, according to Janmohammed "dominated by a Manichean
allegory of white and black; good and evil; salvation and damnation;
civilization and savagery; superiority and inferiority" (Bakhtin, 1981).
In accordance with this notion, colonialist authors reproduce the stereotyped
image of Africa as a "place of barbarism" and the myth of the
"burden of the white man" who is to bring light into the heart of darkness.
With their texts, colonialist authors legitimized the widespread fallacy that
Africa lacked culture, history or literature. It is hardly surprising that this
European blackmail of the "dark continent" elicited protest from
Africans. Achebe, a famous African creative scholar, goes on to say that he
later discovered that "...once that kind of enlightenment comes to you,
you realized that some one has to write a different story". In 1930, Sol
Plaatje heralded the age of these "different stories" of African
authors with his novel MHUDI. Since then, more and more African writers have
been creating an intertextual dialogue by putting the right perspective on
African culture in opposition to the view of colonialist literary text. The aim
is to correct the distorted literary depiction of African and questioning the
colonial mentality of Europeans and Africans as well. African writers created a
more differentiated and realistic picture of Africa and African men. In their
writings, the latter appear as complex individuals who possess dignity, history
and cultural identity and are not primitive, Shakib 3 dangerous and barbarous.
Salman Rushdie described with the words "the empire writes back with
vengeance". This critically intended intertextual dialogue received a name
"writing back". This is visible in Nkenjo Njumbam′s novel The white
man of God, where he highlights a conflict or clash between the Western and
African religion, making it clear that the African did not hear of religion
from the white man. Women’s literature In the pre colonial period, women were
totally marginalized by men in most African societies. In some communities,
women were considered as individuals whose main roles were to bear children,
raise them and take care of the house hold just like the situation of women in
Europe till the 18th century when these women changed their fate through
literary and political intertextuality (Bolter, 1991). The woman’s fate was
determined by father or husband. Women were generally portrayed negatively as dangerous
and malicious. Authors show discrimination view of women as inferior to men.
This notion was later challenged by African women writers who portrayed women
in a more differentiated and realistic way than their male colleagues. In their
works, they destroy the myth that women are inferior to men, faceless beings,
who have made no contribution to history. They correct the image of women in
their writings. They enter into whether or not they intend to do an
intertextual dialogue with the literary text of men, which demonstrates
unmistakable parallels to African male writer’s revision of colonialist view of
Africa (Bordwell and Noel, 1996).
Intertextuality
in film
According to Bazin, a French film theorist,
there is no doubt at all that films were, in principle, works of authors who at
certain time and with certain technical and aesthetic means had managed to
create certain distinctive cinematic artwork (Barthes, 1957). Most of
Shakespeare′s books such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, Merchant of Venice
among others have been reproduced as films, as well as Gulliver′s Travel by
Jonathan Swift, and Chinau Achebe′s Things Fall Apart. Christian Metz, a German
semiologist, purported that films are not only an artwork, but, rather, a
textual system that constitutes its own original, singular totality, in which
the author, if involved at all, is only a constituent of this system. Today, it
seems to be more appropriate to speak of film as one medium among others which
interacts as multimedia, or is connected to one another intermedially. The same
film can be seen on cinema, on TV, on video, and DVD. According to Metz, film,
picture, color, sound, motion, and adaptation from literature, whether
technological or mechanical, make film a sort of technical 4 Int. J. English
Lit. intertexuality. Intertextuality in newspapers Most newspapers or magazines
contain pictures, or cartoons. The degree of the intertextuality is different.
Some are more verbal than visual and vice versa. Intertextuality on computer
screens Texts on the computer monitors are said to be completely hyper textual
links, that is, connections of combination that arrange texts as part of a
simultaneous virtual network to constantly changing current textual formation
which allows the processing of pictures, graphics. Even moving pictures and
film on the same textual level could be a good example of this explanation
because the system affords us opportunity to read texts, watch motion pictures,
listen to audio reports, and even chat online.
INTERTEXTUALITY AND LITERARY EVOLUTION
Returning to
how intertextuality informs literary evolution is necessary. It could be argued
that literature, unlike evolution, is not random. Writers are creative, putting
together strings of words and ideas to a specific end, and intertextuality is
merely a tool of which writers avail themselves to approach a tales. As Fowler
argues, however, understanding intertexuality as symptomatic of a textual
matrix sidesteps authorial design. Individual authors do not use intertexts any
more than individual organisms use mutation—it is only when a reader, like
Darwin, tells a story about a story that intertexts become apparent as part of
the generation process of a work of literature. Many aspects of
intertextuality, in fact, enable us to reframe literature in evolutionary
terms. First, the literary matrix, as a reference space for reading texts, can
also be viewed as a universal point of origin for works of literature. A text
becomes unique in so far as it represents a “new” but perhaps only slightly
distinct, combination of intertexts, a multi-faceted and multivalent
interaction of one text with every text within the literary matrix. A single
character, for example, might be read as the product of multiple
intertextualities with other characters from previous works, each of which is
the product of other myriad intertextualities. In this way, we can construct
family trees, relating a character like Kiki Belsey to other cuckolded
characters as diverse as Zeus’s wife Hera or Shakespeare’s Othello, and perhaps
more importantly, speciation of literature, just like speciation of organisms,
that speaks to the generative mutations of Fowler’s literary matrix, what we
might think of as a literary genome. Intertextuality, however, undermines the
teleology of the literary canon. All works of literature have a common power
source, the literary matrix, and all texts enable the reading of all other
texts. Moreover, not only does intertextuality, like biological evolution,
suggest that all texts have a single origin, thereby complicating the idea that
some are supposed to be better than others, it actually prevents a catch-all
definition of literary superiority. How can one tell that a book is
particularly good? Should it be far more complex combination of intertexualities?
Should it contain a few particularly efficient and resonant intertextualities?
Should it be a prolific source of future intertextualities? Just as there are
many ways to situate an organism in the non-teleological web of life, there are
untold possibilities for locating a work in the literary matrix, and as a
result, literary, like biological, evolution is necessarily non-teleological.
This, however, is not to say that all texts are equally viable. Like biological
success, literary success is wholly a matter of reception, for only those books
that resonate powerfully with many people will be published and read and only
those organisms that survive to reproduce will reproduce. As we have seen,
intertextuality is also almost entirely a matter of reception. It is safe,
moreover, to argue that a specific text’s intertextual moments will have a key
role in determining its success. Barthes mentioned if a text does not
effectively engage with the literary matrix, if its intertexts are not
accessible, then as Fowler suggests and we considered previously, it cannot be
read. If a text cannot be read, then it will not be successful. Therefore, a
text’s viability will be due to its capacity to resonate with readers through
intertextuality. All that can be said of a text that is viable, that enjoys a
wide and long-lasting readership, is that it represents an advantageous
combination of intertexts from the literary genome (Barthes, 1964). It is
probably for this reason that we see entire genres of literature emerge—a
particular combination of thematic or character intertexts proves to be
successful and the literary environment began to select for other novels with
like characteristics.
CONCLUSION
Understanding intertextuality, then, is useful
in considering the evolution of literary stories. Intertextuality teaches us
that like species, stories share a common origin and a common means of
expression of communicating and interacting with the environment. These
commonalities imply that, in parallel with biological evolution, literary
evolution is non-linear and nonteleological. Finally, textual success is due in
large part to the commodity of combinations of intertexts, just as species
viability relies on novel gene expression. Indeed, the matrix of literature is just
as dynamic and vibrant as the biological universe. The only question remaining,
then, is whether or not thinking of literature in evolutionary terms is
generative. But on less personal level, it is important to consider stories as
evolving, for in doing so we assume a greater responsibility as readers. If
literature is narrative, then we can impact future readers and writers, we can
have a greater voice in determining what “good literature is”, what should and
should not be canonical. To presume that literature is non-narrative is to
forsake personal agency and embrace complacency, a state that negatively
resonates with this reader. Any text is a new tissue of past citations. Bits of
code, formulae, rhythmic models, fragments of social languages, etc. pass into
the text and are redistributed within it, for there is always language before
and around the text. Intertextuality, the condition of any text whatsoever,
cannot, of course, be reduced to a problem of sources or influences; the
intertext is a general field of anonymous formulae whose origin can scarcely
ever be located; of unconscious or automatic quotations, given without
quotation marks. Thus, writing is always an iteration which is also a
re-iteration, a re-writing which foregrounds the trace of the various texts; it
is both knowingly and unknowingly places and dis-places. The author supports
the view that most texts specifically literary text, if not all, are
intertextual based on the theories of quotation and imitation. It is very
natural and inevitable in the world of arts. That is why there are clear
approaches in this work to portray intertextuality by means of analyzing
arguments from various authorities, and by citing examples from sources that
can easily be consulted. We are living in a world of Intertextuality or
hybridity. Intertextuality is, thus, a way of accounting for the role of
literary and extra-literary materials without recourse to traditional notions
of authorship. It subverts the concept of the text as self-sufficient, hermetic
totality, Shakib 5 foregrounding, in its stead, the fact that all literary
production takes place in the presence of other texts; they are, in effect,
palimpsests.
REFFRENCES
Allen G (2000).
Intertextuality. London, Graham Allen presses.
Bakhtin M (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, Michael Holquist (ed.)
and Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas
Press. Bakhtin M (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Vern W. McGee
(trans.), Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (eds.). Austin: University of
Austin Press. Barthes R (1957). Elements of Semiology (trans. Annette Lavers
& Colin Smith). London: Jonathan Cape. Barthes R (1964). Image - Music -
Text, Stephen Heath (trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes R (1973). S/Z,
Richard Miller (trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. Bolter D (1991). Writing
Space; The computer, Hypertext, and the history of writing. Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum press. Bordwell D, Noel C (1996). Post theory of Reconstructing Film
Studies. Wisconsin: Madison press. Kristeva J (1986). The Kristeva Reader,
Toril Moi (ed.). Oxford: Blackwe. Santaella L (1998). Media and culture from a
semiotic point of view. Soa Paulo: Sao Paulo Catholic University press. Wagner
P (1996). Ekphrasis, Iconotexts, and Intermediality-the States of the Arts.
Berlin press. Still J, Worton M (1990). Intertextuality: Theories and
Practices. Mamchester: Manchester University Press
Posts
