Recently, the idea of intertextuality popped back into my mind and led to a few thoughts (and this post):
If you look at dictionary.com, intertextuality is defined as:
the interrelationship between texts, especially works of literature; the way that similar or related texts influence, reflect, or differ from each other
If I’m understanding this correctly, intertextuality is a concept that says that many works are related to each other and that authors may make deliberate or unconscious references to other works in their own stories. As an author, I’m pretty aware of other works while writing (I mean, I mostly write fairy tale retellings/sequels so obviously I need to reference the original). But as a book blogger, I’ve noticed that unless they’re in a series, I tend to review books as though they are in a vacuum. Which leads to question one:
Should books be considered in a vacuum?
I wasn’t a very good literature student, which is why I stopped at IB level, but one thing I remembered about lit class and having to analyse multiple texts was the assumption works with literary merit (not going to get into that can of worms today) would be packed with meaning and allusions to other works (like Shakespeare). Honestly, I didn’t get a lot of these references, especially ones that were contemporary to the author or specific to a culture (I should have probably read Mishima after moving to Japan).
Now the question is: how should we consider a book? I recently read My Dark Vanessa and it made me uncomfortable for many reasons. While I was trying to sort out my thoughts in a book review, I found that a lot of my responses to the book were because of a larger environment – discomfort and anger because this mirrored the #MeToo movement and made me confront the ways victimhood is expressed and felt (never an easy thing), as well as a sense of relief because this was, in a way, the story of Lolita told from a Lolita’s point of view.
If my reactions to the book were shaped by other books I had read (even if they were read many years ago) and things happening around me, then I would say that books shouldn’t be considered in a vacuum. But that led me to another two questions:
Should I point it out in a review? Would that make it confusing for someone who doesn’t know the references?
If, for example, you’ve never read Lolita, would it be weird to suddenly read a paragraph about it in a book review about a different book? Do we assume that the person who reads our review has the same literary background as us, or do we try to make things as accessible as possible by keeping references to other books (especially books that may be considered difficult to read) to a minimum?
I think this also brings up the question: who are book reviews for? The consensus I’ve seen is that book reviews are not for the authors, which makes sense, but I haven’t seen much discussion about the type of readers that book reviews are for. If I were to write a review for myself, to help me process the book and as a record for myself, then it makes sense that I talk about all the different connections that I made about the book.
On the other hand, if I am writing a book review to help other people to decide whether to read the book, is it helpful to even discuss the allusions and references the book has made? Wouldn’t it be more helpful to talk about the plot, the pacing, the characters, or just do a straightforward comparison (If you liked XYZ, you’d like this)?
This is where I stopped because I can’t really find an answer, so I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject!
Bonus question: If my posts reference each other is that intertextuality?
So this has nothing to do with the main discussion of the place for intertextuality in book reviews, but I did wonder – if I start making in-jokes or just unfunny references to previous posts, does that mean the concept of intertextuality is taking place? Or does a piece of writing need to have literary merit before you can apply literary concepts to it?
I think it’s totally fine to talk about the references you’ve spotted in a book review. In fact, I think it gives the reader a better understanding of the book-whether they’re familiar with the references at hand or not. I’m personally always curious to learn more about other reader’s take on a book so I might be rather biased here 🙂
Good point that talking about the references could help the reader understand the book! I like to read other people’s take on books too, but I know that’s not for everyone :p
Intertexuality sounds to me like a suspiciously polysyllabic word to describe a very simple phenomenon. Of course no book is ever read in a vacuum. The reader’s mind is not a vacuum. It’s got all the reader’s experiences in it, including literary ones. Of course the book is going to be read in that context. It strikes me that when scholars clear their throats and talk about Intertexuality, it’s just a snobby attempt to imply that non-scholars assume (or even actively claim) that books are read in a vacuum. But we are not that dumb.
I personally find it enriching when people reference other works in their reviews (when that’s relevant). If I’ve never heard of the work being referenced, it usually makes me want to go and get it. In the case of Lolita, I’ve never read it, but it is so widely known in outline that I would think any educated person would be familiar with the general idea, and saying that a book is a re-telling of Lolita from Lolita’s point of view is a very quick, efficient way to tell readers an awful lot about a book.
In further support of referencing other works, many works (even of fiction) are a direct response to another work or to an entire tradition. For example, in 7th grade my class read Things Fall Apart. But we did not read Heart of Darkness, to which TFA was a response, nor were we told it was a response.
A related problem is that sometimes even the author of the book is unaware that the themes they are exploring have been explored before by some great work of literature. Mentioning this might help the author as well, and enrich their next work.
In final support of referencing other works, if you look at any movie review, they do this *so much* with other movies, directors, and film traditions.
Now, I agree there in an inappropriate way to do this. I don’t like it when every story is branded a ripoff of X or a retelling of Y, or when it is compared to unrelated works that the reviewer happens to think are important. I guess there is a right and a wrong way to do literary analysis like anything else.
I agree that a “good” book doesn’t have to be packed with overt cultural allusions. I do often find that the books I enjoy most turn out to be alluding to and drawing on things that I was not previously familiar with. I think this is just because that author’s mind was a rich place. It’s not the allusions themselves that make the book so enjoyable, but the richness.
Do you think that your class would have appreciated TFA more if you had read HOD?
Interestingly, I see that covers have quotes like “a must read for fans of X” or books marketed as “Y book with dragons” but that doesn’t fully talk about influences on the book. Books can be superficially similar (same setting, or perhaps one or two plot points that coincide) but be drawn from different influences in the well of creativity…
So like you said, to note down what you think are the influences in a book might be helpful to the reader. Since that can convey more about the feeling of a book.
Ha ha, good point. Probably not, since Heart of Darkness is not very accessible.
The thing is, Things Fall Apart is basically a message against colonialism. It shows all the damage foreigners do when they come in to West Africa, bringing changes, but not knowing how things work there. So, we did pick up on that, and actually, I think all of us 7th graders were already in agreement with that. I feel like if we had read HOD, it would have enriched the conversation because HOD shows just why colonialists appear so stupid and do so much inadvertent damage: namely, the learning curve is way too steep for a foreigner coming into West Africa and the foreigner has no idea what is going on for the entire time they are there. If we had read HOD, it would have allowed the evil colonialists, whom we were all on board with demonizing, to have their say.
I’m guessing the reason we didn’t read it, besides that there is only so much room in the curriculum, is that HOD would be considered a classic and Things Fall Apart would be considered international. That year, we took a literary tour of world cultures. We read I Heard the Owl Call My Name (First Nations of Pacific Canada); The Pearl (Mexico); Nectar in a Sieve (India); The Good Earth (China); and I’m sorry, but I can’t remember the name of the book set in Japan that we read. It was a great year actually.
Yes, all that “like Y but with X” is more of a marketing thing I think. It helps booksellers know what shelf to put the book on, and what fans to market it to. You are absolutely right that two books have superficially similar features but be very different in tone, theme, etc. When I was still querying, it was a little frustrating, because many agents do in fact want genre-benders, but it’s hard to pitch or market genre-benders, unless you can somehow say they are similar to another book that was a genre-bender when it came out.
Anyway, I think your reviews are fantastic and thoughtful, and when you reference other works, I don’t get the feeling that you are name-dropping but rather that you are engaging in the kind of lit crit that I enjoy reading. Keep it up. 🙂
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation! I’ve not read either book, but I can see how HOD might have enriched the reading of TFA.
It’s a bit silly that because one is a classic and one is classified as an international read that they wouldn’t be taught together, though!
Okay this sort of discussion is so interesting to me! To just stick to the main question (it seems to me at least) of whether to keep these personal intertextual relationships in reviews or not? I say yes! I think that for those who have read the other text is allows them to make the link, and for anyone who hasn’t it will either mean very little (and I’ve seen reviews where they’ve done this, I’ve not read the other book, and it’s fine) or it’ll encourage them to find the synopsis of the other work in order to understand the comparison. I think as well that in making the comparison it brings up certain points and themes as you compare them, which still allows a reader to comprehend the points you’re wanting to make. Even if they themselves have read none of the texts mentioned.
I was a bit worried that readers would get lost if the text veers into literary criticism (I suppose talking about the influences on/allusions in a text would fall under that umbrella) but I’m really glad to see that most people would appreciate it!
Wow, this put my mind to work! I’d say that no, books shouldn’t be considered in a vacuum, at least not when we’ve had experiences or ideas relevant to the book at hand. I believe that it enhances the reading experience for those who have yet to read the book. Although I have found reviews with references I don’t understand confusing before, it is a good way to introduce books along the similar veins as the book being reviewed. At least this is what I’ve felt from experience!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I completely understand how references to other books in a review could be confusing! I can grasp it better for nonfiction (like the author talked about X, which is expanded upon in book Y) but it’s hard for me to think of how to put them in for fiction!