Whenever an author creates a “dialogue between texts”, they create a whole new meaning, theme, or feeling for what they are writing. An example of this would be when Foster mentions that someone may see an author as more intelligent for quoting Shakespeare in their work. The reader would see that this person is quoting Shakespeare, and now the writing has more value to them because it is something they recognize and understand. The same thing happens with the Bible. Whenever someone can create a story that mirrors the bible it creates a sort of commonplace and the book has a lot more meaning. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe series is a prime example of this connection because it's an allegory of the Bible. When this connection is formed it makes a new type of value for its readers because they can pinpoint all of the symbols and their meanings which makes it so much more than a story about a few children who climb through a closet and find a magical world. Books like the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe series show that sometimes intertextuality is intentional, but sometimes it happens by accident. This is where Foster’s “one big story” theory comes into play. Writers accidentally reference past readings in their works all of the time making anything we read also part of past work. By reading one story we get a feel for maybe twenty other stories without even realizing that we are reading ”one big story”.This intertextuality lets us see way more stories than what is right in front of us giving it significance, value, and a whole new effect.
ReplyDeleteDear Erinn,
You were absolutely right when you said that intertextuality provides a new significance and value to a reader. However, I would argue that the benefits of intertextuality can only be reaped by a reader. A writer may appear to be more intelligent when they allude to famous authors and classic pieces of literature. However, they have no more knowledge than a reader that understands said allusion. Therefore, the only person that gains from intertextuality is the reader because they, unlike the author, must apply their own knowledge to discover the hidden allusion. A writer, alternatively, can easily slap in an allusion without much thought at all.
Madison
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErinn, when it comes to intertextuality, I feel like it doesn't necessarily bring forth a "new" meaning to people. It's the same story we've heard before with a different spin on it. That's the whole concept of the "one big story," so I disagree, respectfully of course. Also, I feel as though when an author references another book it is intentional or they wouldn't bother adding it in their work. Authors definitely can't help noticing similarities between works, it's human nature to seek out what seems familiar, but it's not as if they do it by "accident." They add the intertextuality to gain merit. In a cynical sense, the writer hitch-hikes or piggy backs their way to hopeful success. Now, I don't necessarily see all writers that reference outside works in that way. Most people reference books, art, or film in order to solidify their point or purpose. We try to donate our ideas and chime into the big picture or the "one big story" to add to it. Maybe we think if we make these additions we've made a contribution to society; we feel as though we've done our part as intellectuals.
ReplyDelete