Page 109 - Knighted_Issue2.0

Rachel Maddox
Heart of Literature: Intertextuality in Frankenstein and Heart of Darkness

Literary texts through the ages coexist with each other in an endless tapestry of inter- and
“intratextual” dialogues, communicating with each other through their themes, word usage, plot
structures, and deepest meanings (Cairney 14). These relationships problematize the idea that
literary works exist solely within themselves, bounded by the author’s intentions. This issue is
clearly shown in the relationship between Mary Shelley’s classic novel Frankenstein and Joseph
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, as the second text imitates the first in many meaningful, even
uncanny, ways. Intertextuality between these novels is illuminated by Daniel Chandler’s
statement that “texts owe more to other texts than to their own makers” (201) and underscores
his assertion that, rather than existing in a bracketed vacuum, art imitates art (209). Further
proving that genres are only ostensibly, not actually neutral, Conrad was almost certainly
inspired by Shelley and formed his argument to fit the medium of the novel. However, the texts
are identical; Conrad’s ultimate argument is different from Shelley’s, and his book clearly
interacts with hers. Their readership and worlds were different, and each author subconsciously
reached their ideal reader and interacted with the cultural context and ideology of their time.
Nonetheless, unbracketing both texts shows that Conrad uses shameless bricolage throughout his
story, choosing to mimic Shelley through authorial similarities between himself and his
characters and with extensive thematic and structural intertextuality between Frankenstein and
Heart of Darkness.

Though there may not have been many similarities between the two authors themselves,
Conrad maintains a relationship between himself and his work that appears to imitate Shelley’s
with hers. First, both authors are of different nationalities and belong to different original speech