1
Study Grant Proposal for Summer II 2012
Mimesis and the Intertextual Parody: Contemporary Re-Visionings of Classic Literary Texts
Delores Zumwalt
Office: 972-881-5954
dzumwalt@collin.edu
2
Mimesis and the Intertextual Parody: Contemporary Re-Visionings of Classic Literary
Texts
A prevalent literary genre of the past half-century popularly referred to as the “parallel novel,”
models its style, structure, or content after classic literary texts of the past. Examples include
Anita Diamant’s The Red Tent, based on the Biblical story of Dinah; John Gardner’s Grendel
which recalls the Anglo-Saxon epic, Beowulf; John Updike’s Gertrude and Claudius, drawn
from the legend of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark; and Sena Jeter Naslund’s Ahab’s Wife, which
echoes Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. The volume and popularity of this literary genre marks it
as an intriguing subject for scholarly inquiry. My personal inquiry is founded on a few
preliminary questions. Why are contemporary readers fascinated by the stories, voices, and plot
schemes of earlier works? Why bother reading a new or different version of an older story when
the original is readily available? Why do skilled literary artists choose to work within the
established parameters of existing narratives in lieu of creating their own “original” stories? Is
the resulting product merely a sort of duplication of the original, or is a unique literary entity; is
it a new genre of art with a singular purpose separate from the original? I propose to engage in
an organized study of this literary genre with the goal of approaching answers to these and
subsequent questions that will arise during the course of my study.
My background in both literature and rhetoric leads me to examine most texts via the intersection
of these two disciplines. A genre grounded in the apparent reproduction of existing narratives
leads me to consider the rhetorical tradition of imitation. Termed “mimesis” in the classical
period, both Cicero (De Oratore) and Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria) expound upon the value of
learning to compose by imitating noble models of the past. Renaissance rhetoricians like
Erasmus (Copia) and Thomas Wilson (The Arte of Rhetorique) expanded upon the tradition with
a focus on the values of “imitatio” in the pursuit of eloquence in the creation of both oral and
written texts. The imitation of both content and stylistic elements is imbedded in these early
rhetorical traditions; the intent was not to slavishly “copy” revered models, but rather to employ
them as models of inspiration and points of departure. Thus, ideas and structures of the past were
integrated—as a base or reference—into contemporary works. Echoes of this tradition, might, I
believe, be identified in the so called parallel novel of the postmodern era.
From a literary perspective, the parallel novel can be viewed as a type of parody. I use here a
definition of parody that expands upon the traditional notion of parody as an often humorous,
mocking imitation of a previous literary work. My study will be grounded in a postmodern
concept of parody as articulated in the work of Linda Hutcheon, who describes parody as: “a
form of imitation. . .characterized by ironic inversion. . .criticism need not be present in the form
of ridiculing laughter for this to be called parody” (A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of
Twentieth-Century Art Forms, 5-6). Within this framework, works that refer in any number of
ways to literary works of the past can be read as parody. Using this approach, a key concept
associated with the literary genre of parody is the postmodern concept of intertextuality which
depicts a central aspect of literary tradition in that network of structural and / or contextual
references within a work that relate either consciously or unconsciously to an earlier literary
work. As parody and intetextuality appear to be central components of the parallel novel, I
believe that Hutcheon’s phrase, “intertextual parody” more accurately describes this genre.
Perhaps the popularity of this type of novel is grounded in a writer’s skillful implementation of
3
these elements, for as Hutcheon declares: “The pleasure of parody’s irony comes not from humor
in particular but from the degree of engagement of the reader in the intertextual ‘bouncing’” (A
Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms, 32).
I propose to devote Summer II of 2012 to an in-depth study of this intriguing contemporary
literary genre, the intertextual parody. I plan to examine it through a dual lens—as a product of
both rhetorical and literary tradition. I will begin my study with a reading of selected sections in
classic and Renaissance rhetorical texts that outline and examine the concept of mimesis
(imitation). In addition to these readings of primary rhetorical texts, my study will begin with a
close reading of two key secondary works: Linda Hutcheon’s A Theory of Parody: The
Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms and Margaret A. Rose’s Parody: Ancient, Modern,
and Post-modern. These readings will provide a theoretical foundation for my study.
Once I am grounded in a theoretical base (both rhetorical and literary), I will move on in
subsequent weeks to a close reading of several novels that can be categorized as intertextual
parodies. In order to fully appreciate and identify both overt and subtle manifestations of the
various rhetorical and literary qualities of the genre, I will also read the classic works to which
the parodies refer. My primary goal is to answer some of the questions related above, and to
come to a fuller understanding of the links that continue to be forged between classic and
postmodern rhetorical and literary traditions.
Plan of Study:
Week 1:
I will begin my study by examining sections in the following works that outline and establish the
rhetorical concept of mimesis (imitation): Cicero’s De Oratore, Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria,
Erasmus’s Copia, and Thomas Wilson’s The Arte of Rhetorique. These selections appear in the
collection: The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Having read
the complete texts of these works in graduate school, my purpose now will be to simply refresh
my understanding of this single concept as expressed in these primary texts—this will serve as a
rhetorical base from which I will proceed.
A grounding in literary theory for this study will emerge from my close reading of the following
secondary sources: Linda Hutcheon’s A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century
Art Forms and Margaret A. Rose’s Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-modern.
As I proceed at the outset of this study to lay a theoretical foundation for my examination of
representative novels, I expect that I may elect to refer to or read in part other secondary sources
that will enhance my understanding. Notable on this list is Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis: the
Representation of Reality in Western Literature.
Week 2:
In the second week of my study, I will commence a systematic reading of representative novels
in the genre of the intertextual parody. I will begin by re-reading Homer’s The Odyssey which
4
will prepare me to read Margaret Atwood’s parody: The Penelopiad: The Myth of Penelope and
Ulysses. Relevant secondary sources like Hilde Staels’ “The Penelopiad and Weight:
Contemporary Parodic and Burlesque Transformations of Classical Myths” may be added to my
reading list at this point to augment the study.
Week 3:
Readings this week will include:
Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and John Clinch’s Finn: A Novel
Shakespeare’s King Lear, and Jane Smiley’s A Thousand Acres.
Week 4:
Readings this week will include:
Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women and Geraldine Brooks’ March
Selected secondary critical sources, such as:
Intertextuality and Contemporary American Fiction edited by Patrick O'Donnell and Robert Con
Davis
“Rhetoric and Intertextuality” by Heinrich F. Plett
Week 5:
This study will conclude with a reading of L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz in conjunction
with Geoff Ryman’s parody, Was.
Selected secondary sources will be chosen at this time with a view toward a focused conclusion
of this study.
5
Proposed Reading List
Primary Sources:
Alcott, Louisa May. Little Women. 1869. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Atwood, Margaret. The Penelopiad: The Myth of Penelope and Ulysses. New York: Canongate,
2005. Print.
Baum, L. Frank. The Annotated Wizard of Oz. Eds. Michael Patrick Hearn and W. W. Denslow.
New York: Norton, 2000. Print.
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical
Times to the Present. New York: Bedford, 1990. Print.
Brooks, Geraldine. March. New York: Penguin, 2005. Print.
Clinch, John. Finn: A Novel. New York: Random House, 2007. Print.
Homer. The Odyssesy. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2000.
Print.
Ryman, Geoff. Was. New York: Penguin, 1992. Print.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. The Annotated Shakespeare. Ed.Burton Raffel. New York:
R. R. Donnelly, 2007. Print.
Smiley, Jane. A Thousand Acres. New York: Knopf, 1991. Print
Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 1885. Boston, Bedford, 2004. Print
Secondary Sources:
Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: the Representation of Reality in Western Literature. 1957.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 2003. Print.
Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
6
---. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms. New York: Methuen,
1985. Print.
O'Donnell, Patrick and Robert Con Davis, eds. Intertextuality and Contemporary American
Fiction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP. 1989. Print.
Plett, Heinrich F. “Rhetoric and Intertextuality.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of
Rhetoric 17 (1999): 313-329. JSTOR. Web.
Rose, Margaret A. Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-modern. Cambridge UP, 1993. Print.
Staels, Hilde. “The Penelopiad and Weight: Contemporary Parodic and Burlesque
Transformations of Classical Myths.” College Literature 36 (2009): 100-118. Project
Muse. Web.
Additional Secondary Sources:
As my study progresses, I expect to draw from some of the relevant sources below to
augment my study of the primary works
Booth, Sherry. “A Moment for Reform: Rhetoric and Literature at the University of Glasgow.”
Rhetoric Review 22 (2003): 374-395. JSTOR. Web.
Chatman, Seymour Benjamin. “Parody and Style.” Poetics Today 22 (2001): 25-39. Project
Muse. Web.
Corbett, Edward P. J. “The Theory and Practice of Imitation in Classical Rhetoric.” College
Composition and Communication 22 (1971): 243-250. JSTOR. Web.
Erickson, Keith V. “A Decade of Research on Aristotle's Rhetoric: 1970-1980.” Rhetoric
Society Quarterly 12 (1982): 62-66. JSTOR. Web.
Fiske, George Converse. Lucilius and Horace:a Study in the Classical Theory of Imitation.
Westport, CN: Greenwood, 1971. Print.
7
Friedman, Susan Stanford. "Weavings: Intertextuality and the (Re)Birth of the Author."
Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History. Eds. Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein.
Madison: U Wisconsin P, 1991. 146-80. JSTOR. Web.
George, Diana, and Diane Shoos. "Dropping Bread Crumbs in the Intertextual Forest: Critical
Literacy in a Postmodern Age." Passions, Pedagogies and 21st Century Technologies.
Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English, 1999. 115-128. JSTOR. Web.
Golden, Leon. Aristotle on Tragic and Comic Mimesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Print.
Lyons, John D and Stephen G. Nichols, eds. Mimesis, from Mirror to Method, Augustine to
Descartes. Hanover, NH: UP of New England, 1982. Print.
Mailloux, Steven. “Literary Criticism and Composition Theory.” College Composition and
Communication 29 (1978): 267-271. JSTOR. Web.
Melberg, Arne. Theories of Mimesis. New York: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.
Mitscherling, Jeffrey Anthony. The Image of a Second Sun: Plato on Poetry, Rhetoric, and the
Techne of Mimesis. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2009. Print.
Pigman, G. W. “Versions of Imitation in the Renaissance.” Renaissance Quarterly 33 (1980):
1-32. Print.
Potolsky, Matthew. Mimesis. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Rorty, Amelie, ed. Essays on Aristotle's Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1992. Print.
Sigelman, Lee, and William Jacoby. "The Not-So-Simple Art of Imitation: Pastiche, Literary
Style, and Raymond Chandler." Computers and the Humanities 30 (1996): 11-28.
JSTOR. Web.
8
Spariosu, Mihai and Ronald Bogue, eds. Mimesis in Contemporary Theory: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1984. Print.
Varsava, Jerry A. Contingent Meanings: Postmodern Fiction, Mimesis, and the Reader.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida State UP, 1990. Print.
White, Hayden. Figural Realism: Studies in the Mimesis Effect. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
UP, 1999. Print.