Morph-ology: Bakhtin 1981 excerpts

Bakhtin has his own poetic, and I'm struck by the ways in which he brings in a host of other analogies in his own writing to explain what it is he's talking about; in the case of the area I'm going to explore, the issue of light refracting off a lens to explain the way meaning changes as the heteroglossia surrounding a particular text changes the way we see it. Just as light in rarefaction through a lens changes the shape, focus, and perception of an object, so does a change in the dialogue in which a particular text is situated.

I'm talking here about Bakhtin's concept of re-accentuation, which to me, both actively pursuing and studying my hobby of fan fiction is a very interesting one. Fan fiction is by its nature a heteroglossic undertaking; it is adding an interpretation to a text which already exists, or extracting bits of that text and creating a new dialogue around them. In doing so, the meaning of that text is gradually changed bit by bit as people grow to understand the situation differently. For example, in the original book, Edward the vampire likes to watch Bella sleep; when he admits this to her, she finds this hopelessly romantic. Yet if a fan fiction writer writes a so-called "alternate universe" (AU) fanfiction where Edward, instead of being a chaste, moral vampire who drinks from animals is instead a traditional bloodthirsty killer, when that writer repeats the trope of Edward watching Bella sleep, the interpretation of the new version is much more sinister. And what is more fascinating is that this new interpretation affects not only the AU, but that of the original text as well, and moves readers to understand the original book's Edward's motives as being quite creepy rather than the hopelessly romantic gesture they may have originally felt them to be.

Bakhtin argues that as texts move through different historical periods and different groups, each one adds a different meaning to it and shapes it, because the heteroglossic fabric which surrounds the text changes each time it is moved. Yet perhaps this is the test of something which is lasting; a great text continues to grow and move, morphing into other meanings and interpretations as it makes its way through the dialogic imagination of new sets of readers.

Marni's Presentation

I’ve always thought Marni’s question to be a very interesting one, and I was interested to see the way in which she ultimately decided to operationalize it by looking at cancer narratives. I do think that shared experience does constitute a type of prior text, especially because often shared experience often creates a distinct text within itself—I’m reminded of Tovares’s recent work on athlete narratives, when certain phrases become the norm for discussing things, like in “mile 20 is when the real race begins” is an instance of “real race” being used to describe the inner battle to finish versus the physical battle of fatigue.

Particularly interesting in Marni’s readings I thought was this use of intertextual (and intratextual in the case of Hamilton) ties in the construction of identity. The ways in which identity is co-constructed is a particular research interest of mine as I’m currently looking at audience design in the sociolinguistic interview. At the same time, Hamilton’s construction is working a little differently in that the author’s responses and interactions with the patient serve to help construct the patient’s “patient” identity, which is different from the audience and referee design theory that I’m working with.

I also find interesting Bakhtin’s notion that we are influenced by incorporating another’s words into our own discourse. This seems to me to be one of the major factors in the narratives that Marni is looking at. Although I did not get the chance to explore the narratives themselves, this question of taking on others’ words seems to me to be a prime site for understanding the ways in which intertextuality allows them to develop the identity of cancer survivors. In what ways to they adopt the “language” of cancer survival? In medical anthropology in undergrad, we often talked about how cancer is framed as a battle—the cancer battling the body and the patient battling the cancer, as though there is anything the patient can do to actually effect change on the cancer . In fact, the mere presence of all of these stories on Livestrong is to some extent an intertextual tie itself—Lance Armstrong is known for his bravery in battling his cancer and for going on to win many more races after his treatment. By positioning themselves with Livestrong, the authors of Marni’s narratives tap into the experience of Armstrong.

Most useful to me from Marni’s work is probably this idea of being influenced by the incorporation of others’ words. I believe part of WK is the taking on of a voice and a stance that others have already identified, and sometimes it is even taking on words such as “baww” or “butthurt” which shape the world of an additional interlocutor so that they understand and respond to the situation as an instance of WK instead of a different reaction they may have had otherwise.