What I find most interesting about Irvine's commentary is that it begins to tackle a part of intertextuality that I find many other treatments of the topic seem to gloss; that is, the meaning created by what is not there, which is often every bit as profound as the meaning created by the things that are. She identifies several types of gaps/features of gaps, which I will list for my own future reference:
-that unlike chunks of text shed light on like ones; they throw into relief the similarity of other parts of the text that otherwise might be more difficult to recognize as a like
-avoidance: the question of who sees what is being avoided (the 900-pound gorilla, as it were) and why they see it creates interesting questions about what is contained in the rest of the text
-absence: what has been excluded from the text and why
-roads not taken: why one approach was chosen.
In my own work, I find Irvine's thoughts on absence quite interesting, especially this question of unlike chunks shedding light on like ones. WK is an instance of incongruity, and perhaps part of what makes it so offensive to the people who are "being white-knighted is the simple fact that the incongruous opinion of the white-knight makes them all seem more similar, and subtly implies that they are the sheep in the herd.
No comments:
Post a Comment