The article explores the definition and the essence of intertextual theory as it is interpreted by M. Bakhtin, J. Kristeva, R. Barthes and other prominent scholars and literary critics of the 20th century, particularly from the viewpoint of poststructuralism. In the broadest terms possible, intertextuality can be defined as a set of relations between texts, which can include direct quotations, allusions, literary conventions, imitation, parody and unconscious sources among others. This concept dramatically blurs the outlines of texts, making them, in R. Barthes’s words, an “illimitable tissue of connections and associations.” The term itself was originally coined by the French semiotician and philosopher Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s. By combining Saussurean and Bakhtinian theories, J. Kristeva produced the first enunciation of intertextual theory, wherein she essentially suggested reconsidering the widely accepted notions of the author’s “influences” and the text’s “sources”. This theory was further developed by R. Barthes, who proclaimed the “death of the author” and insisted that the literary meaning can never be fully grasped by the reader, because the intertextual nature of literary works always leads readers on to new textual relations. In turn, French critic G. Genette introduced the notion of ‘transtextuality’ as a more comprehensive term, and put forward five types of transtextual relations (intertextuality, paratextuality, metatextuality, architextuality, hypertextuality). This theory has also become widely popular in the era of postmodernism, not just in relation to literary works, but also in other domains (cinematography, architecture, pictorial arts etc), as imitation of well-known artistic styles, direct and indirect references to various works of culture have become a salient feature of postmodern art. In general, it should be emphasized that intertextuality subverts the concept of the text as self-sufficient, hermetic totality. Instead, it emphasizes the fact that all literary production takes place in the presence of other texts, works of culture, and various social and historical factors. The reader also plays a crucial role in interpreting the text, because the reader’s previous experiences, their cultural and educational background will inevitably influence the scope of meanings that the reader is able to extract from the text.
The Beauty of Evil” – On the Uniqueness of Arson in Literary Works
