Talk:Intertextuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] From Votes for deletion
Contains nothing but a quotation and a link. Redirect to Kristeva. RickK 23:53, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important concept that wouldn't be illuminated by a link to Julia Kristeva. I agree that it needs work; I'll start by adding some "see also" links. Wikisux 00:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. Keep, at least for a week or so - the page was just created today. -Seth Mahoney 01:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just had my gag reflex triggered by seeing Kristeva's name again. Keep it. The concept is important to post-modernism and tens of thousands of black-clad grad students weaving around a keg. (Sheesh, I can't even manage to not be sarcastic with this.) Keep the page. I'm not the guy to expand it. Geogre 02:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This is a major movement in literary criticism, and we need to have an article on it. This entry needs a lot of work, but it's important. Keep. -FZ 13:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It is a major concept. I'm not sure, though, that a Kristeva-only approach would do it, as, although it was her coinage, there are a lot of other literary theory terms for the same basic thing, and I hope that whoever does do the expansion includes dialogic, for example, and the Reader Response and Reception Aesthetic notions of the open work (which is intertextual). Geogre 22:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Needs cleanup, but is definitely encyclopedic. Should not be redirected to Julia Kristeva unless Id is to be redirected to Freud and Deconstruction to Jacques Derrida as well. Snowspinner 02:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but cleanup ScottyBoy900Q 13:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. See The Seagull for a perfectly sane example. Charles Matthews 19:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Hyacinth 22:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Neutrality 22:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep... so if someone really creates a new page, you immediately put it on vfd? After all, if the original writer didn't write it perfect the first time, it's shit and it has to be started over... right? --Lussmu 08:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
[edit] needs some more contextualization (ironically enough)
Intertextuality isn't universally agreed to be some particular thing, and it isn't universally agreed what role (if any) it should play in analysis. I'm mostly familiar with criticism of the term, but it seemed weird to add a "Criticisms" section when there was hardly anything from the "Pro" side in the first place, so I'm holding off on that until hopefully someone with a more favorable view of intertextuality adds some citations/explanations of the "Pro" side. For future reference, this is a pretty good article expounding the viewpoint that it is an ill-defined and incoherent term:
- William Irwin (2004). Against intertextuality. Philosophy and Literature 28(2): 227-242. (Online abstract.)
--Delirium 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this reference; I used it in an edit today, but I'm sure there's more that could be gotten out of it. Hickoryhillster 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extra examples in pop culture section
Added a bit of balance in pop culture section along with extra examples. Frelaras 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hypertext
A Hypertext as can be found in the internet is NOT the same as a hypertext in the field of transtextuality. will take care of it as soon as i find the time.
The above unsigned comment was posted by 194.95.210.197 at 10:19, 29 November 2006 194.95.210.197 I moved this comment from the "From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion", since it doesn't seem to be from the deletion discussion. On the substance of the comment: It's true that "hypertext" means something differently (namely, a hypertext is one that refers to another text in a way other than commentary, according to Gennette). However, it's probably also true that some critics have considered internet hypertextuality as intertextual, although I can't think of any references.
Hickoryhillster 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
