« Oh no, not journalism again! | Main | Greenblatt's "Culture" »

April 23, 2007

Some Rambling Discourse

Barker and Hulme, ''Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish'' -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

"Essential to the historico-political critique which we are proposing here are analytic strategies made possible by the concept of discourse. Intertextual has usefully directed attention to the relationship between texts: discourse moves us towards a clarification of just what kinds of relationship are involved" (445).

So are Barker and Hume saying that intertextuality is not enough, that even through using it we can't just focus on the links between texts, but that we must categorize the links and use them to make arguments about those links? To an extent I see this as a combination, once again of type of literary criticism. I think of intertextuality as a type of historical criticism anyway, because to me any text that has literary value also has some sort of historical value and vice versa. This idea of discourse seems really important also in that it has a sort of inconclusiveness about it, like we are never able to close the discussion of any topic on literature, which of course, makes sense, because if there is nothing for us to talk about anymore then we are "intellectually dead" as Dr. Jerz put it.

Posted by LorinSchumacher at April 23, 2007 1:19 PM


We don't want to just give up, so you're right. With intertextuality, there is always room to take one idea and exchange it for another and that's what I like so much about it.

Posted by: Erin at April 23, 2007 9:32 PM

As I mentioned on Kevin Hinton's blog, it is all about a culmination of everything that we have studied. You see intertextuality in cultural criticism and Kevin saw reader response...Greenblatt mentioned that there is connections to formalism. I just think that we must see that culture involves every aspect of what we view and keep that in mind when we are criticizing.

Posted by: Tiffany at April 25, 2007 9:23 PM

I think with intertextuality, we can create our own reactions concerning the flaws, or the positives, of historical data. Literature has multiple references to a generally flawed characteristic of society, and through using some points of intertextuality, but I would say even more reader-response, the society that reads and understands literature can be able to make sure that they do not make the same mistakes. I think that in literature, the act itself is important, but it is the reaction to that act that shows our true colors. Consider the Don Imus comments: the act itself was wrong, but our reactions expressed what was actually wrong with it. Why was it wrong? 50 years ago, there probably would not have been something wrong with those comments. But in today's society, we view that there is something wrong, and that a change should be made. All we are really doing in that situation is reading into the event, and making a change for the better. I think, in all honesty, that is what literature does for us as well.

Posted by: Jason Pugh at April 26, 2007 4:32 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?