Lakhasly

CONCLUSION

Understanding intertextuality, then, is useful in considering the evolution of literary stories.Finally, textual success is due in large part to the commodity of combinations of intertexts, just as species viability relies on novel gene expression.Intertextuality teaches us that like species, stories share a common origin and a common means of expression of communicating and interacting with the environment.These commonalities imply that, in parallel with biological evolution, literary evolution is non-linear and non- teleological.Indeed, the matrix of literature is just as dynamic and vibrant as the biological universe.The only question remaining, then, is whether or not thinking of literature in evolutionary terms is generative.But on less personal level, it is important to consider stories as evolving, for in doing so we assume a greater responsibility as readers.

CONCLUSION

Understanding intertextuality, then, is useful in considering the evolution of literary stories. Intertextuality teaches us that like species, stories share a common origin and a common means of expression of communicating and interacting with the environment. These commonalities imply that, in parallel with biological evolution, literary evolution is non-linear and non- teleological. Finally, textual success is due in large part to the commodity of combinations of intertexts, just as species viability relies on novel gene expression. Indeed, the matrix of literature is just as dynamic and vibrant as the biological universe. The only question remaining, then, is whether or not thinking of literature in evolutionary terms is generative. But on less personal
level, it is important to consider stories as evolving, for in doing so we assume a greater responsibility as readers. If literature is narrative, then we can impact future readers and writers, we can have a greater voice in determining what "good literature is", what should and should not be canonical. To presume that literature is non-narrative is to forsake personal agency and embrace complacency, a state that negatively resonates with this reader. Any text is a new tissue of past citations. Bits of code, formulae, rhythmic models, fragments of social languages, etc. pass into the text and are redistributed within it, for there is always language before and around the text. Intertextuality, the condition of any text whatsoever, cannot, of course, be reduced to a problem of sources or influences; the intertext is a general field of anonymous formulae whose origin can scarcely ever be located; of unconscious or automatic quotations, given without quotation marks. Thus, writing is always an iteration which is also a re-iteration, a re-writing which foregrounds the trace of the various texts; it is both knowingly and unknowingly places and dis-places. The author supports the view that most texts specifically literary text, if not all, are intertextual based on the theories of quotation and imitation. It is very natural and inevitable in the world of arts. That is why there are clear approaches in this work to portray intertextuality by means of analyzing arguments from various authorities, and by citing examples from sources that can easily be consulted. We are living in a world of Intertextuality or hybridity. Intertextuality is, thus, a way of accounting for the role of literary and extra-literary materials without recourse to traditional notions of authorship. It subverts the concept of the text as self-sufficient, hermetic totality