Vote 0 Votes

Chapter 5 talked a lot about the essence of intertextuality and gave us definitions of what one had thought it was. I toot the liberty to look it up to see what specifically it was and what Wikipedia had said was that "Intertextuality was the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts." Seemed pretty simple to me, so why was a whole chapter about it? While reading I saw that Intertextuality isn't just about "texts." Kristeva states "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is an absorption and transformation of [other] texts" (pg. 79). I love how she had said "mosaic of quotations" because I have never really thought of "mosaic" without the use of art involved, but it makes perfect since. A text really is just something that is created out of pre-writings like questions, notes, and multiple ideas you have strung in your head to find the perfect mosaic masterpiece.

I think Intertextuality has more to do with how the audience experience certain texts. Certain language has the power to not only exceed individual control but also determine subjectivity and with this power it can significantly emphasize the uniqueness of both texts and authors that really get the audience to be more attentive to what they are being taught.


| Leave a comment


You are definitely on to something when you start thinking a bout how the audience experiences certain texts. We talked about this quite a bit in class today, and how intertextuality only works if the audience can participate in it.


Contrast to this statement, I felt that the concept of intertextuality was complex and the idea of interchanging and modifying existing content from one form to another was anything but simple. Following reading chapter five, I feel the authors did a thorough job explaining and providing examples to make the concept clearer. When looking at the word, intertextuality, immediately I thought it meant, connecting texts. However, like the previous post mentions, intertextuality is not just about texts, but is “constructed as a mosaic of quotations” (79). Although this description may be easily misinterpreted, Bakhtin provides a good example from Charles Dickens’ novel Little Dorrit. Examining how the author utilizes his own narrated contexts, as well as borrows texts from other sources, helps to understand the meaning of intertextuality. According to Kristeva and Bakhtin, thinking about intertextuality in this sense makes it easier to comprehend how it can be viewed as an “unending conversation…where meaning becomes something which exists between a text and all other texts to which it refers” (80).

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by haml0068 published on March 6, 2013 11:57 PM.

Intertextuality Blog Post 2 was the previous entry in this blog.

Intertextuality is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.