Intertextuality practice

A) How does U. Eco use the theory of intertextuality to analyse "Casablanca"? 

B) What is the relationship between the theory of intertextuality and the theory of archetypes?

a) Eco begins by analysing the core of the film, the script. He mentions a conversation between two characters in which one wants to tell the other a story, but stresses that she does not know the ending yet. This is exactly how the script was written - being completed during the process of making the film, instead of having been finished before. This marks the intertextual relationship between Casablanca and its own script.

Later, the author mentions another character ordering drinks. Interestingly, Laszlo orders a different drink every time. Plot-wise the action does not make much sense, nor is relevant to the story. Eco assumes that the script writer was simply copying such situations from various other films.

Finally, Casablanca can also be compared to Hamlet. Not because of the plot, but because of how both of them were written. Citing T.S. Eliot, Eco suggests that Casablanca and Hamlet were not the best works of their authors due to numerous different ways their authors meant for the plot to develop and form; eventually, both of them might feel improvised and rushed to the viewer/reader.

b) The theory of intertextuality refers to the relationship between different texts, how they shape and influence one another (for example, a motif from one work can appear, usually in slightly changed form, in another, because of a deliberate effort of the author who is familiar with the former). The theory of archetypes describes a part of the plot - a situation, a dialogue, a character, among others - that has been pre-established and is frequently reused in different texts, in order to provoke a certain reaction in the reader. It does not need to be universal, but rather relevant to a certain genre or society. Therefore, both theories are similar due to the existence of a part of the plot that has not been the original idea of the author, but appeared in the work as a result of them being familiar with particular notions - whether coming from a given text or being an already established idea.

Postcolonial criticism example [Benjamin Franklin's "Remarks Concerning The Savages Of North America"]

Franklin's article centers mainly around the understanding of kindness from the perspective of Indians.

The first mention of what can be considered a colonialist's interference is the recollection of the meeting with Indians in Pennsylvania; the conversation was supposed to convince the Natives to send several of their young men to a school run by Europeans. That was not the first time, however, that such offer was presented. The men of the tribe, who were previously taught in such schools, were thought by their people after their return as lacking in skills of hunting, speaking their native language, or fighting. Although, despite that, the Natives did not immediately refuse (their conduct of kindness required at least one day of waiting before giving an answer), nor scold the Europeans for their repeated proposal.

Consequently, the issue of those of the Natives that received education from colonialists plays a part in the men's troubled understanding of their identity. They now belonged to both worlds: they could speak English, were familiar with European culture and ethics, yet, at the same time, they were sent back to their hometowns, to live among - now mostly foreign - Indian society, their habits and way of life, where they were found unqualified to participate in their tribe's daily routine.

While, considering the question of identity, it would be tempting to subconsciously refer to the Natives as "strangers", Franklin's article - deliberately or not - seems to portray Europeans as those who were somehow "different". The described meeting of a Minister with the Sasquehanah people is a fitting example of such portrayal. The tribe politely listens and then thanks the cleric for introducing them to the base of the Christian faith, but they are also willing to tell the man the story of a deity of theirs. The minister then gets rather annoyed, calling it a false fable. Both reactions to each others beliefs - the quiet appreciation from the Indians, and the sudden irritation of the priest - portray the later as the one who is not accustomed to his current environment.

Finally, as in any story of the clash of two vastly different societies, the issue of resistance comes to mind. Whereas the word alone is often associated with violence and turmoil (the article itself talks of "savages"), Franklin's text describes an entirely different perspective: the resistance through good manners, politeness, and the will to learn more about each other, which, as suggested by the author, surprised the Europeans more than acts of cruelty would.

"A Beautiful Young Nymph Going To Bed" - poem analysis from the perspective of new historicism

Swift's characteristic, ironical gimmick can be spotted even before the poem begins – in the title itself. As the reader quickly notices, the Beautiful Young Nymph does not turn out to be a real mythological creature, or even a real, yet sophisticated lady – Corinna is, in fact, a prostitute. However, the misconception of the character draws even further, as the reader – if they are familiar with the 18th-century fashion, especially the feminine attire – might instinctively picture Corinna as a well dressed (albeit still keeping in mind that her beauty might have been purely created by make-up, yet again taking into consideration the time frame), attractive woman. Here, the author's satirical style comes to play yet again; he describes the lady's bedtime routine, detailing the ridiculous amount of various "enchantments" she takes off, therefore revealing her true physical self – a body marked and destroyed by whatever illness the 18th century London, with which Swift was very familiar with, might have had "in-store" for a woman like Corinna. The destruction of Corinna's disguise, mostly by pests, might be interpreted as an allusion to the actual nature of the London society of the 1700s, hidden between a thick veil of appearances and phony refinement.