Guidelines for accepted papers (oral and poster)

IMCOFE’15 : INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONGREE of EURASIA

Intertextuality Analysed Through Three Novels: When She Woke, The Scarlet Letter and The Handmaid’s Tale ÖZYÖN A. [email protected] Abstract Today intertextuality is one of the most discussed and studied subjects. The term itself is a complex one with a meaning difficult to define and with borders difficult to draw. Hillary Jordan’s novel When She Woke taking place in a dystopic modern world, is a kind of rewriting of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter written about a century ago from our time. Hawthorne’s novel sets in the 17th century Puritan society with harsh rules about religion and social life as is known. Therefore, the protagonist Hester Prynne is drawn out of the town and forced to live out of the society because of adultery and her illegitimate baby. On the other hand, although Jordan’s novel takes as time the mid-21st century there is no change about the mentality of the society especially about women and their rights to give birth to a baby or not. Hannah is convicted since she committed adultery and had an abortion. Furthermore, Jordan’s novel has some affinities with another dystopian novel, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to display and analyse the intertexts in Jordan’s novel from the two aforementioned novels by using the approach of intertextuality. Keywords: Intertextuality, Hillary Jordan, When She Woke, The Scarlet Letter, The Handmaid’s Tale.

Üç Roman Yoluyla Metinlerarasılık Analizi: Uyandığında, Kızıl Damga ve Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü Özet Günümüzde metinlerarasılık en fazla tartışılan ve çalışılan konulardan biridir. Terimin kendisi anlamı belirlenmesi ve sınırları çizilmesi zor olan karmaşık bir terimdir. Hillary Jordan’ın modern distopik dünyada geçen Uyandığında adlı romanı, Nathaniel Hawthorne’un günümüzden yaklaşık bir asır önce yazılmış olan Kızıl Damga adlı romanının bir tür yeniden yazımıdır. Hawthorne’un romanı bilindiği üzere din ve sosyal hayat konusunda katı kuralları bulunan 17. yüzyıl Püriten toplumunda geçmektedir. Bu yüzden romanın başkahramanı Hester Prynne işlediği zina suçu ve evlilik dışı bebeği yüzünden kasabadan sürülerek toplum dışında yaşamaya zorlanır. Diğer taraftan, Jordan’ın romanı zaman olarak 21. yüzyılı ele almasına rağmen, toplumun özellikle kadınlar hakkındaki zihniyeti ve bir bebeğe hayat verip vermeme konusunda karar verme hakları ile ilgili hiçbir değişiklik bulunmamaktadır. Hannah da zina suçu işlediği ve kürtaj yaptırdığı için cezaya çarptırılır. Dahası, Jordan’ın romanı bir başka distopik roman olan Margaret Atwood’un Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü adlı romanı ile de bazı benzerlikler taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmanın amacı, Jordan’ın romanında yukarıda adı geçen iki romandan alınmış parçaların, alıntıların bulunduğunu -metinlerarasılık yaklaşımını kullanarak ortaya koymak ve analiz etmektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Metinlerarasılık, Hillary Jordan, Uyandığında, Kızıl Damga, Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü. __________________________ 1

Arzu ÖZYÖN, Dumlupınar University, The School of Foreign Languages, Kütahya, TURKEY.

797


1. INTRODUCTION This paper aims to find the traces of intertextual relations between the American writer Hillary Jordan’s dystopian novel When She Woke and Hawthorne’s classical novel The Scarlet Letter and another dystopian novel, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Therefore Jordan’s novel will be taken as a latecome text and will be analysed both in terms of its relation to The Scarlet Letter and The Handmaid’s Tale, both of which are taken as pre-texts in this study.

2. INTERTEXTUALITY AND THE PIONEERS OF THE APPROACH Intertextuality is an umbrella term that includes different types or subdivisions like revision, translation, quotation and sources (see Miola, 2004: 14-19) or “ekphrasis” and “iconotext” as Mohammad Khosravi Shakib categorizes it (Shakib, 2013: 1) or “iterability” and “presupposition” as in James E. Porter’s words (Porter, 1986: 35). Therefore it is difficult to draw borders for the term or to define it exactly. Adolphe Haberer still questions the existence of an accepted definition of the term intertextuality and tries to find an answer to his own question: “But is there one accepted mainstream definition of intertextuality? This is most doubtful. All one can do is observe the way in which theorists have tried to formulate a definition, note the variations and differences, and see which can help us progress in our understanding of the problem” and by giving Umberto Eco’s words: “It is not true that works are created by their authors. Works are created by works, texts are created by texts, all together they speak to each other independently of the intentions of their authors” concludes that “[…] no text exists on its own. It is always connected to other texts”(Haberer, 2007: 57). Graham Allen expresses this variety and up to datedness of intertextuality in his own words at the opening part of his book Intertextuality: Since Julia Kristeva first coined the term in the 1960s, intertextuality has been a dominant idea within literary and cultural studies, taken up by practically every theoretical movement. Yet intertextuality remains the subject of such a diversity of interpretations and is defined so variously, that it is anything but a transparent, commonly understood term. […] since cultural debate never ceases, […] intertextuality promises to be as vital and productive a concept in the future as it has been in the recent past. (Allen, 2006: 209).

Actually what is important and what counts most is not to try to find a definition for intertextuality but as Graham Allen puts out, “our task is to engage with [intertextuality] as a split, multiple concept, which poses questions and requires one to engage with them rather than forcing one to produce definite answers” (Allen, 2006: 60). And although there are many different approaches to intertextuality by theorists such as Bakhtin, Kristeva, Genette, Riffaterre and some others, Allen tries to put an end to all discussions and explains what intertextuality simply means to all people, including writers, readers, critics and theorists: Whether it be based in poststructuralist or Bakhtinian theories, or in both, intertextuality reminds us that all texts are potentially plural, reversible, open to the reader’s own presuppositions, lacking in clear and defined boundaries, and always involved in the expression or repression of the dialogic ‘voices’ which exist within society. A term which continually refers to the impossibility of singularity, unity, and

798


thus of unquestionable authority, intertextuality remains a potent tool within any reader’s theoretical vocabulary (Allen, 2006: 209).

Intertextauality although was first used by Julia Kristeva in her “Word, Dialogue and Novel” (1966) and then in “The Bounded Text” (1966-67) as a term (see Alfaro,1996: 268), had been much earlier defined and practiced by many critics such as Plato and Aristoteles, and later by Mikhail Bakhtin, Genette and Riffaterre. For instance “In the case of Plato, the ‘poet’ always copies an earlier act of creation, which is itself already a copy” (Alfaro, 1996: 269) can be considered as an inspiraton for Kristeva’s definition of any text “constructed as a mosaic of quotations.” As Zuzana Mitosinkova puts it “[…] it’s beyond discussion that Genette, Riffaterre or Kristeva are the godparents of these indubitably interesting theories, but their craddle and at the same time their grandfather is BAKHTİN. From this point of view, Bakhtin was a Pioneer, dealing with mutual relations between texts long before the term intertextuality was coined by J. Kristeva (Paris 1966)” (Mitosinkova, 2007: 68). Adolphe Haberer takes the origins of the intertextuality even back to the modernists such as David Jones and especially T.S. Eliot with his long narrative poem “The Waste Land” and his “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, whom he sees as the “successive theoretical avatars” of intertextuality. For him “[…] the epistemological modernist rupture of the 1920s was the occasion for the production of works and reflections, especially by T.S. Eliot, that are the forerunners of those produced by the intertextualists of our postmodernity” (Haberer, 2007: 55-56). As Roland Barthes indicates in his well-known article The Death of the Author “We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture” (Barthes, 1977: 146). Therefore, no text can be considered as original, but only an imitation of earlier texts. “[…] an imitation has no independent or autonomous essence. It is neither a copy nor an original. Now in the case of platonic imitation, the poet always copies an earlier act of creation, which is itself already a copy” (Shakib, 2013: 2). “The creative writer is the creative borrower, in other words” (Porter, 1986: 37). Since texts in the postmodern era are the imitations or copies of the earlier works, it seems that “we also need the traditional literary histories as substances for our free-plays” (Mihkelev, 2004: 43).

3. WHEN SHE WOKE AS THE FUTURISTIC REINTERPRETATION OF THE SCARLET LETTER This type of intertextuality [revision] features a close relationship between anterior and posterior texts, wherein the latter takes identity from the former, even as it departs from it. The process occurs under the guiding and explicitly comparative eye of the revising author. The revision may be prompted by external circumstance - censorship, or theatrical, legal, or material exigencies. Alternatively, the revision may simply reflect an author's subsequent wishes. The reviser who is not the author presents another scenario and an entirely different set of problems and considerations. In all cases, however, the transaction is linear, conscious, and specific, marked by evidence of the reviser's preference and intentionality (Miola, 2004: 14).

799


Thus, Hillary Jordan takes the scenario of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, makes some changes in her own way, for instance she changes the setting, time and place from 17th (16421649) century Puritan society in Salem to 21st century of the Texas state of America and creates a new but not original story out of the earlier one. In the chillingly credible tomorrowland of Jordan’s second novel, Roe v. Wade has been overturned, abortion has been criminalized in 42 states and a vigilante group known as the Fist of Christ brutalizes violators. America has regressed to an unforgiving puritanical order reminiscent of Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter,” a literary touchstone that has probably eluded the fundamentalist upbringing of Jordan’s protagonist, Hannah Payne. No matter: she’s living it (Stuart, 2011).

Or in Jordan’s case, Genette’s concept of “hypertextuality: the relation between the latecome text (hypertext) and its pre-text (hypotext)” can also be used to explain the relation between Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter as pre-text and Jordan’s When She Woke as latecome text. “He defines hypertext as every text derived from a previous one by means of direct or indirect transformation (imitation), but not through commentary. In the former, direct or simple transformation, a text B may make no explicit reference to a previous one A, but it couldn't exist without A. For instance, The Eneyd and Ulysses are, in different degrees, two hypertexts of the same hypotext, The Odyssey” (Alfaro, 1996: 281). Another definition that matches with the case of Jordan seems to be Robert S. Miola’s one of the subdivisions of the intertextuality as “Sources”. “Source texts provide plot, character, idea, language, or style to later texts. The author’s reading and remembering directs the transaction, which may include complicated strategies of imitatio. The source text in various ways shapes the later text, its content, or its rhetorical style and form. There are at least three subdivisions possible here” (Miola, 2004: 19) one of which is “the source proximate” that “is the most familiar and frequently studied kind of intertextuality, that of sources and texts. The source functions as the book-on-the-desk; the author honors, reshapes, steals, ransacks and plunders. The dynamics include copying, paraphrase, compression, conflation, expansion, omission, innovation transference, and contradiction” (Miola, 2004: 19). As is seen above, all the definitions clash and blend with each other at some points, in some way as is the case in the nature of the intertextuality itself. Each researcher or theorist tries to define the term in his/her own way. That is why it is very difficult to draw exact borderlines for the term intertextuality. The first reminder of The Scarlett Letter in Jordan’s novel is the initial letters of the names of the characters. While Nathaniel Hawthorne uses Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale as his characters names, Hillary Jordan takes these names and changes them into Hannah Payne and Aidan Dale as is seen at the very beginning of the novel (Jordan, 2012: 13, 16). Because of the names of the characters with initials “H” and “P” in Hannah Payne and “A” and “D” in Aidan Dale, the names of Jordan’s characters become directly reminiscent of Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale. Jordan also gives Hester Prynne’s daughter’s name, Pearl to Hannah’s unborn baby. “Her and Aidan’s child had started as a tiny speck and had been nourished and grown in the sea of her womb. Hidden, marvelous and unknown. Unwanted. ‘This is my daughter, Pearl’ she

800


said.”(Jordan, 2012: 121 trans. AÖ*). Jordan uses the name Pearl with one difference: While Hawthorne leaves the interpretation of the child’s name to the reader, Jordan almost gives the reason why the baby was given the name Pearl, because she’s “hidden, marvelous and unknown” like a pearl. “Her Pearl—for so had Hester called her; not as a name expressive of her aspect, which had nothing of the calm, white, unimpassioned lustre that would be indicated by the comparison” (Hawthorne, 1999: 67). So the personality of Hester’s daughter has nothing to do with the qualities of a “pearl” literally. Although she is pure and she is the only treasure of her mother, she is not white and calm like a pearl. Also the seal of Hester’s crime, adultery, a letter “A” is embroidered in front of her dress in her bosom as is seen in the following example:“ […] the point which drew all eyes, and, as it were, transfigured the wearer—so that both men and women who had been familiarly acquainted with Hester Prynne were now impressed as if they beheld her for the first time—was that SCARLET LETTER, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom”(Hawthorne, 1999: 40). However, Hannah’s punishment is represented in a different way in Jordan’s novel. As a sign of her sin of adultery and abortion after it, Hannah is convicted to a punishment of thirteen year of being red. It is given for the first time in the first line of the novel “When she woke, she was red” (Jordan, 2012: 9 trans. AÖ*). Although both punishments are given by the governments with strict rules and supported by the society under the influence of harsh religious rules, Hester’s punishment seems to be easier to get rid of while Hannah’s punishment can only be ended by the government or can be stopped in a very dangerous and illegal way. Whatever the extent of them, both punishments are utilized to show the crime Hester and Hannah have committed, that is adultery, and murder (abortion) in addition to this, in Hannah’s case. Another example supports the idea that Jordan uses Hawthorne’s “scarlet letter” as a kind of inspiration and changes it into a different kind of punishment: “Her mother raised her forefinger. ‘You won’t commit adultery’. The second finger arose. ‘You won’t lust after your neighbour’s husband.’ Third finger. ‘You won’t kill’” (Jordan, 2012: 28 trans. AÖ*). Therefore as she has committed adultery with a married man Aidan Dale and has had abortion, what she deserves is to be stigmatized with the colour “red” completely for thirteen years as a sign of her crimes and shame as she mentions in the example: “Whatever was the stain of shame she carried on her, this creature had not perceived it” (Jordan, 2012: 178 trans. AÖ*). Apart from the affinities between the two novels mentioned above, what is similar or parallel between them, actually between the protagonists of the two novels, Hester and Hannah, is their occupation: Hester does needlework, likewise Hannah is a tailor. And both characters are extremely skilled at what they are doing. In The Scarlet Letter Hester’s needlework, since she is very talented, is described as an art: She possessed an art that sufficed, even in a land that afforded comparatively little scope for its exercise, to supply food for her thriving infant and herself. It was the art, then, as now, almost the only one within a woman’s grasp—of needle-work. She bore on her breast, in the curiously embroidered letter, a specimen of her delicate and imaginative skill, of which the dames of a court might gladly have availed themselves,

801


to add the richer and more spiritual adornment of human ingenuity to their fabrics of silk and gold (Hawthorne, 1999: 61).

On the other hand, Jordan’s character Hannah is almost as equally talented as Hester as is seen in the quotation below: She was skilled at needlework all along and the walls of the Payne House were covered with samples showing the improvement of her talent, from simple embroidery canvases she did in her childhood to the verses decorated with lambs, doves and crosses. She saw dresses for her babies and Becca’s, embroidered flowers on her mother’s kitchen apron, and the initials of his father’s name on his handkerchief, and used these as gifts of peace when she fell from grace (Jordan, 2012: 19 trans. AÖ*).

Hence, the occupations of these two women, Hester and Hannah and their extreme gift about needlework and sewing displays another trace of intertextuality between the two novels. In terms of intertextuality Robert S. Miola also emphasizes “the identification of verbal iteration or echo (those endless and often disappointing lists of parallel passages)” (Miola, 2004: 14) the illustration of which can be found in the quotations from the two novels given parallelly below: […] Hester heaved a long, deep sigh, in which the burden of shame and anguish departed from her spirit. O exquisite relief! She had not known the weight until she felt the freedom! By another impulse, she took off the formal cap that confined her hair, and down it fell upon her shoulders, dark and rich, with at once a shadow and a light in its abundance, and imparting the charm of softness to her features (Hawthorne, 1999: 152). Bridget continued as if she had never spoken. ‘You will always tie your hair with hairclips and will cover it neatly when you are not in bed’ […] She wore her own clothes. […] Finally she untied her hair. Her hair fell upon her shoulders, down from her back. And she recognized how much she missed to feel the weight of her hair, and how naked she remained without the protection of her hair (Jordan, 2012: 86,133 trans. AÖ*).

Hester and Hannah are forced to conform to the rules of the society, one of which is to cover their hair neatly. In these two scenes their act of uncovering and letting their hair free is both a sign of their bravery and their rebellion against society, which is repeated in Jordan’s novel almost as in the same way as it is in The Scarlet Letter indicating another sign of intertextuality.

4. ALLUSIONS TO THE HANDMAID’S TALE THROUGH WHEN SHE WOKE This kind of parallel scenes are seen more frequently between Jordan’s When She Woke and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. To illustrate, the writers of both novels draw two carnavalesque scenes in their novels, which quite resemble each other displaying that Jordan not only takes inspiration from Hawthorne’s novel, but also draws on some parts of The Handmaid’s Tale, another dystopian novel by Atwood. One of the analogous parts is a carnavalesque scene during which both Hannah and Ofred (the Narrator) break with their monotonous lives and, even if it is just for a short time, find an

802


opportunity to take a breath. Here, Hillary Jordan again takes inspiration from the scene in Atwood’s novel and reshapes it as a part of her own novel as is seen below: He brings his hand out from behind his back. He’s holding a handful, it seems, of feathers, mauve and pink. Now he shakes this out. It’s a garment, apparently, and for a woman: there are the cups for the breasts, covered in purple sequins. The sequins are tiny stars. The feathers are around the thigh holes, and along the top. […] I’ve never worn anything remotely like this, so glittering and theatrical, and that’s what it must be, an old theatre costume, or something from a vanished nightclub act; […] ‘It’s a disguise,’ he says. ‘You’ll need to paint your face too; I’ve got the stuff for it. You’ll never get in without it.’ ‘In where?’ I ask. ‘Tonight I’m taking you out.’ […] I want anything that breaks the monotony, subverts the perceived respectable order of things (Atwood, 2011: 241-243).

Jordan inspired by this scene in The Handmaid’s Tale, adapts it to her own novel by making some changes: The women [Hannah and Kayla] took a bath and changed their clothes. There were about ten or twelve garments in the closet all of which were surprisingly tasteful and feminine. Kayla chose a dark grey sateen tunic with a slit collar and black thights, and Hannah wore a black lace dress with long drape sleeves. The bodice of the dress was a bit low but she didn’t mind; it felt nice to get dressed like a woman again (Jordan, 2012: 225 trans. AÖ*).

Although the dresses are not as colourful, “glittering and theatrical” as in the first scene they are still tasteful and feminine and leave a similar impact on women. It is a small change in their monotonous lives, Ofred’s life of imprisonment and Hannah’s life with a continuous flight and struggle. Another scene Jordan borrows from Margaret Atwood’s novel and moulds to make a part of her own novel, is the scene of sexual intercourse where the Commander, his wife Serena Joy and Ofred are seen together to carry out their duty: The Ceremony goes as usual. I lie on my back, fully clothed except for the healthy white cotton underwears. […] Above me, towards the head of the bed, Serena Joy is arranged, outspread. Her legs are apart, I lie between them, my head on her stomach, her pubic bone under the base of my skull, her thighs on either side of me. She too is fully clothed. My arms are raised; she holds my hands, each of mine in each of hers. This is supposed to signify that we are one flesh, one being. What it really means is that she is in control, of the process and thus of the product. If any. The rings of her left hand cut into my fingers. It mayo r may not be revenge. My red skirt is hitched up to my waist, though no higher. Below it the Commander is fucking. […] It has nothing to do with passion or love or romance or any of those other notions we used to titillate ourselves with. It has nothing to do with sexual desire, at least for me, and certainly not for Serena. […] This is not recreation, even for the Commander. This is serious business. The Commander, too, is doing his duty (Atwood, 2011: 104-105).

And, here is the scene which Jordan reshapes for her own novel, however this time it is not a scene of sexual intercourse, but a scene of the repetition of Hannah’s abortion, which Mrs. Henley at the TRUE PATH CENTRE (trans. AÖ*) wants Hannah to perform again: ‘However, although it is unpleasant for you to tell and for me to listen to, I will need to learn the details of your sin. Let’s start from the moment when you undressed and lay on the table- was it a table?’ Hannah stared at the woman without perceiving what she said. […] ‘What the path requires from us thirdly is the truth’ she said. […]

803


Therefore, I ask again, was it a table?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Show me how you lay, your position. You may either lie on the sofa or on the floor, whichever you prefer’ […] Hannah closed her eyes. Where else could she go? She had nowhere to go. She lay on her back with slow and mechanic movements and curved her knees. The woman with a weary voice from impatience told, ‘I want to see your exact position, Hannah.’ Hannah stretched her legs and everything came back like a flood: That hot room, the cold metal pushed in her, and pain. She heard her own voice moaning- then and now. ‘Look at me, Hannah.’ Mrs. Henley had leaned forward bending her head to one side. ‘What did you feel while you were lying there waiting for your abortionist to start?’ ‘I wanted to die’ said Hannah. […] The interrogation persisted. ‘How long did it last?’ ‘Did you have much pain?’ ‘Did you see the fetus, afterwards?’ […] ‘You can stand up now, Hannah’ said Mrs. Henley eventually. Hannah stood up, and felt a bit dizzy (Jordan, 2012: 115-117 trans. AÖ*).

Whatever is the scene, both situations are difficult and at the same time shameful experiences for Ofred and Hannah who are forced to perform them. As is mentioned above, the author of When She Woke uses one of the passages of The Handmaid’s Tale as a source of inspiration and constructs a new passage for her novel. The other example of analogous sections is seen when both protagonists discover a handwriting in the rooms they are provided to stay in: I saved the cupboard until the third day. I looked carefully over the door first, inside and out, […] I knelt to examine the floor, and there it was, in tiny writing, quite fresh it seemed, scratched with a pin or maybe just a fingernail, in the corner where the darkest shadow fell: Nolite te bastardes carborundorum. I didn’t know what it meant, […] Still, it was a message […] intended for whoever came next. It pleases me to ponder this message. It pleases me to think I’m communing with her, this unknown woman (Atwood, 2011: 62).

Likewise Hannah discovers a short poem under the bedside table in her room: There was nothing in the closet other than some jackets and windbreakers that seem unpossessed, and nothing under the bed other than the heaps of dust. It was empty under the matress. But while she was getting up, her eye caught under the bedside table. Something was written there, scratched on the plywood. When she couldn’t read it- because it was upside down- she lay flat on her back and popped her head between the narrow legs of the bedside table. A short poem had been written with neat capital letters: Traces of love in bed Here, thus describes Menelaus The absence of Helen The words committed to her heart. She didn’t know who Menelaus and Helen were, but what Menelaus felt for Helen […] was familiar and inevitable. […] She couldn’t bear the idea of getting into the bed alone, […] Her love had gone and the absence of him in her bed and life was permanent. She fell asleep while crying (Jordan, 2012: 181-182 trans. AÖ*).

Although the second scene seems to be a kind of repetition of the first one, with the protagonists discovering handwritings in their rooms, the effect of the writings on both women, Ofred and Hannah is almost the opposite: While Ofred seems happy to find such a writing in Latin meaning “Do not let the bastards grind you down” and regards it as a way of

804


communication and a sign of hope, Hannah becomes extremely sad with what she reads since it reminds her of her own loss: the man she loved and her baby. But this difference shows the creativity of the second author, Hillary Jordan who reinterprets what she has borrowed from Atwood’s novel and adds a new, actually an opposite point of view to the scene. The last affinity between the two novels, actually the last borrowing of Jordan from The Handmaid’s Tale that will be mentioned in this paper is the concept of “the eye” as is used in Atwood’s novel, the idea that a person always feels that s/he is being watched by someone: He looks at me, and sees me looking. […] He takes a final puff of the cigarette, lets it drop to the driveway, and steps on it. He begins to whistle. Then he winks. I drop my head and turn so that the White wings hide my face, and keep walking. He’s just taken a risk, but for what? What if I were to report him? Perhaps he was merely being friendly. Perhaps he saw the look on my face and mistook for something else. Really what I wanted was the cigarette. Perhaps it was a test, to see what I would do. Perhaps he is an Eye (Atwood, 2011: 28)

As is seen in the quotation from the novel, “the eye” is a kind of mechanism used to impose fear on the handmaids and to have control over them more easily. Like spies they always watch the handmaids without them recognizing that they are being watched or by whom they are being watched. A similar mechanism, but this time formed of mirrors and cameras is seen on the very first page of Jordan’s novel, where Hannah is kept in a kind of cell for 30 days as a part of her punishment. In the cell she has the feeling that she is being watched by many people through some cameras behind the mirrors around her: She had not seen the mirrors yet, but she felt that they were shining at the edge of her consciousness and were waiting to show what had become of her. She could sense the existence of the cameras behind the mirrors, their every single eye shot, their recording of every slight movement of her muscles, the government official guardians, doctors and the technical staff behind the cameras, and also millions of people watching her with their feet stretched to the coffee tables and their eyes fixed on the screen with their bottles of beer or soda pop in their hands. ‘I won’t give them anything’ she thought to herself: Neither evidences or exceptions for their case studies nor reactions that will arouse their mercy or disgust (Jordan, 2012: 9-10 trans. AÖ*).

Like Ofred, Hannah has fear and suspicion because of this “watching eye” or “mechanism” that forces her to control every behaviour or feeling of her similarly. Thus, this concept of “an eye” or “camera” in what form it is, is the last sign of intertextuality between the two novels, which Jordan takes, changes the form and utilizes in her own novel.

5. CONCLUSION This paper has taken the concept of intertextuality as its subject and tried to apply it to three novels, Hillary Jordan’s When She Woke, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. While doing this, it has taken Hawthorne’s and Atwood’s novels as two “pre-texts” and Jordan’s as “hypotext” as in Genette’s words and has shown a kind of intertextual journey from The Scarlet Letter and The Handmaid’s Tale to When She Woke.

805


REFERENCES [1]

Alfaro, Maria Jesus Martinez. “Intertextuality: Origins and Development of the Concept” ATLANTIS XVIII(1-2) 1996.

[2]

Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group. London and New York, 2006.

[3]

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. Vintage Books. London, 2011.

[4]

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of The Author” in Image-Music-Text. Fontana Press. London, 1977.

[5]

Haberer, Adolphe. “Intertextuality in Theory and Practice” LITERATURA 2007, 49(5).

[6]

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. Wordsworth Editions Limited. 1999.

[7]

Jordan, Hillary. Uyandığında. (Çev. Özlem Yüksel). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. İstanbul, 2012.

[8]

Mihkelev, Anneli. “Free-Play With Traditions: Literary History and Intertextuality” SENOJI LIETUVOS LITERATURA, 18 KNYGA, 2004.

[9]

Miola, Robert S. “Seven Types of Intertextuality” in Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality. Michele Marrapodi (ed.). Manchester University Press, 2004.

[10] Mitosinkova, Zuzana. “Tracing Intertextuality”, 2007. [11] Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” Rhetoric Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 1986. [12] Shakib, Mohammad Khosravi. “Inevitability of arts from inter-textuality” International Journal of English and Literature Vol. 4(1), pp. 1-5, January 2013. [13] Stuart, Jan. Sunday Book Review. Fiction Chronicle. Dec 16, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/books/review/fiction-chronicle.html?_r=1.

806

2011.