The Genre of Trolls - Doria

various formulations of a theme have bearing on the interpretation of
specific instances of it.
In Riffaterre’s vocabulary, the term intertext is reserved for texts which
must be adduced in order to comprehend the ungrammaticalities of the
text, the unintelligible, seemingly unmotivated departures from logic and
accepted usage. The presence of these intertexts is signalled by a connective,
a word or phrase occurring in both the text and the intertext, linking
them to each other. The connective represents a problem in the text, but it
also furnishes the answer to that problem in the intertext. Riffaterre argues
that the combination of the sign systems of the text and intertext creates a
new entity accounting for the uniqueness of the text (Riffaterre 1990: 61,
57–58); thus he draws a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of most
other scholars who deny the absolute originality of texts because of their
inclusion in an intertextual system.
Furthermore, Riffaterre differentiates between meaning, which is the
result of the first, syntagmatic reading, i.e., the reading of the words and
phrases of the text in succession, and significance, which springs from the
second, retroactive reading. Meaning is plural, but unlike most proponents
of intertextuality, Riffaterre does not cherish its multiplicity. The aim of
interpretation is to arrive at the one, unitary significance of the text, summarized
in the matrix, a single word from which the structure of the whole
text can be derived. This word is not present in the text; it is detectable
only in the form of its variants, the ungrammaticalities evident in the text.
Consequently the discovery of the matrix calls for a reinterpretation of the
multifarious meanings of the text in order to achieve a uniform explication
(Riffaterre 1978: 2–6, 13, 19).
Riffaterre champions the non-referentiality of poetry, since the ungrammaticalities
of the text require a reading not according to reality, but in relation
to other texts. The habit of interpreting poetry as a representation of
reality must be overcome to arrive at the significance of the text. The function
of the second reading is therefore to make this transition from mimesis
and meaning to semiosis and significance. Riffaterre identifies two types
of intertextual representation of reality; the first creates its representation
by referring to an intertext at odds with reality, the second depicts reality
by negating an intertext conforming to that reality (Riffaterre 1984: 143).
His rejection of referentiality thus parallels Kristeva’s disregard for context,
although the arguments for doing so are slightly different.
28
Introduction