« Confused? | Main | Are you 'old school'? »

The invisible subject.

Keesey, Ch 5 (Introduction) -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

"Intertextual" critism, then, is something neither new nor strange, and the idea that our understanding of literature depends on a knowledge of its conventions may often go unremarked because it goes, as we say, without saying. But quite as often, one suspects, it goes unsaid because it is unseen (Keesey 267).
Keesey sure does say a lot in his introductions. I think this sums up intertextuality well. The fact that it's more about the conventions, the words, then any thing else seems to make this form or critism seem like the purest form.(?) Were are only going to use the context as our basis, ok I can dig that. But then if that is all we got, then we better make sure we understand the text well enough to try and break the text down. I think, maybe, that this could also be the most difficult for the same reason(s). There is less (content) to use. So then the intertextual critic would/should have a firm understanding of the text or else their whole criticism would fall apart. Right? I can see this as both a very simple form (because your only using the text) and very difficult form (because your only using the text) of criticism then.

Comments (1)


I think you're right. If we only have the text to look at, how do we form a good argument if we can't compare it with other works?

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 12, 2007 7:28 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Confused?.

The next post in this blog is Are you 'old school'?.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.