The central argument in my treatise is that in his novels Peter Ackroyd rewrites English literary history while imposing his intertextual view of art on us. Ackroyd uses the works of earlier writers as material for his own novels; he takes up his subjects from the history of English literature. This reflects the poststructuralist or postmodern thinking in which art is seen to mirror other art (texts), not life or 'reality'. Ackroyd breaks away from the realist convention by foregrounding the intertextual position of his novels as well as thematizing intertextuality as such. While doing so, Ackroyd deconstructs three myths: (1) the 'truth' of history writing, (2) the Romantic idea of original, individualistic genius, and (3) the myth of 'realistic' fiction, which he exposes as a convention.
In place of these myths, Ackroyd reconstructs his own ones. He emphasizes the inevitable textuality of our knowledge of the world and history, and stresses the intertextuality of all writing. According to this logic, pastiche, or imitation, is no longer seen in negative terms but, together with parody, becomes the essence of true 'poetry'. Unlike other poststructuralists, like Roland Barthes (1977), who have insisted that the introduction of the concept of intertextuality into critical discourse has resulted in the 'death of the author', or the rejection of the concept of originality (Hutcheon, 1988), Ackroyd defends authorship and, through his intertextual view of art, goes so far as to redefine 'originality'.Thus, in his novels Ackroyd may be said to give his own contribution to literary theory, while at the same time re-examining the literary canon. Ackroyd's fiction is literary criticism written in the form of novels - his works are postmodern metafiction that not only point towards themselves but also towards literature and criticism as a whole. The paradox in Ackroyd's writing is that in re-examining the literary past and in imitating others, he is not actually imitating anybody (cf. Miller, 1989: 95).
As for the critical method, I am relying on several poststructuralist and postmodern theorists. I shall be using Kristeva's notion of 'intertextuality' (e.g. in Plett, 1991), Bakhtin's idea of 'dialogism' as well as David Cowart's (1993) theory of literary symbiosis. I shall also refer to T. S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent" (in The Sacred Wood, 1920), Harold Bloom's (1975) 'anxiety of influence', and the deconstruction theory of Derrida and others (e.g. "Structure, Sign and Play", in The Structuralist Controversy, 1972). I shall also make use of Linda Hutcheon's theories of parody and historiographic metafiction (The Politics of Postmodernism, 1989) as well as Liisa Saariluoma's theory of the postindividualistic novel (Postindividualistinen romaani, 1991), especially her notion of intertextual 'self'. I shall also refer to Peter Ackroyd's own writings, biographies and essays, Notes for a New Culture (1976) in particular. These, I hope, will not only provide valuable insights into Ackroyd's fiction but will also help to place his own poststructuralist thinking into a wider intellectual context.
Most novels by Ackroyd (with the exception of Hawksmoor (1985) and The House of Doctor Dee (1993)) move in the world of English literary history. The Great Fire of London (1982) reinvents Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens; The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde (1983) is written in the form of a diary as if by Oscar Wilde himself; Chatterton (1987) reinterprets the life and death of the poet, Thomas Chatterton, and First Light (1989) clearly alludes to the works of Thomas Hardy. English Music (1992), moreover, is no less than a collage of English literature and culture; Dan Leno & the Limehouse Golem (1994) bases its crime plot on the writings of Thomas De Quincey; and the most recent novel, Milton in America (1996), gives an alternative account of John Milton's later years. The question is, therefore, which ones to choose as the material of analysis here within the scope of this treatise.
My solution is to focus on three novels by Ackroyd which I think emphasize different aspects of his use of intertextuality in relation to the English literary history: The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde (chapter 2) is a good example of Ackroyd's extraordinary gift as an imitator and a literary stylist, but at the same time it exemplifies his poststructuralist practice of blurring traditional genre boundaries. Chatterton (chapter 3) self-reflexively thematizes imitation and intertextuality but it also questions the truths of history writing as well as proposes an alternative to the literary canon. It also deals with the 'anxiety of influence' and redefines the Romantic myth of 'original genius'. Finally, Dan Leno & the Limehouse Golem (chapter 4) explores these issues of art and tradition even further and extends the intertextual view of art to life itself, at the same time as it mocks the myth of 'realistic' fiction. Dan Leno also serves to illustrate the ways how Ackroyd uses earlier stories as the basis of his own fiction.
In addition to these, I will also refer to Ackroyd's other novels as well as other contemporary fiction, whenever that seems relevant. I have structured my paper chronologically, since this enables us to trace the development of Ackroyd's writing and makes it easier to detect the ongoing patterns in the texture of his verbal art.
Before finally moving on to the actual discussion, it is necessary to comment on two central terms of this paper: (1) 'intertextuality' and (2) 'postmodernism'. These terms are used differently by different theorists, and consequently are not without some conceptual ambiguities. Hence their brief elaboration here.
There are basically two "schools" of intertextuality: The first is the more practical and traditional one which delimits itself to the study of the relationship between a text and its pre-text(s). According to this view, the intertextual relationship becomes interesting only when the connection can be clearly verified and pointed out in the text, and this textual relationship usually takes the form of an allusion, quotation, annexation, etc. The dialogic interplay between a text and its pre-text may understandably create problems for interpretation, but then again this narrower view of intertextuality provides a sound, practical method of analysing these questions.
The second view is the more theoretical one, associated with poststructuralism and theorists such as Julia Kristeva, Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. It posits the wider view of intertextuality which says that all texts are intertexts. Intertextuality is the basis and requirement of all communication, and all (communicable) texts and discourses are always built upon existing cultural codes and norms. Texts are seen as 'mosaics of citations' or 'echo chambers', wherein the question of origin loses its importance. Textuality itself controls discourses more than subjects themselves (cf. Plett, 1991: 1-4).
In this paper I am using both views: the first is applied to my practical textual analysis of Peter Ackroyd's intertextuality - how he uses other texts as the basis of his novels. The second is used in the more theoretical discussions about Ackroyd's art and is related to my argument about the kinds of views and purposes that can be found behind Ackroyd's use of intertextuality.
The question of postmodernism is not fixed either, and there are many notions about it. The theories of postmodernism encompass a whole range of different fields, including philosophy, sociology, art history, architecture, literature and criticism, and every theorist seems to have his or her own conceptions and emphases about the term (cf. Selden, 1993: 174-9). Thus, instead of trying to limit my approach to one particular view, I accept the plurality of the concept and use the term 'postmodern' whenever a theorist calls a specific feature by that name. One of the best surveys of postmodern tendencies is given by Ihab Hassan (in Romanticism, Modernism, Postmodernism, ed. Garvin, H., 1980), and many of the features listed by him are also relevant to Ackroyd, especially qualities such as Decreation/Deconstruction, Text/Intertext, Against interpretation/Misreading, and Difference-Differance/Trace. These tendencies are also largely synonymous with poststructuralism.
Other postmodern features that are relevant to my topic are Ackroyd's use of metafiction, his playfulness in the re-examination and re-use of English literary history, his suspicion of historical 'truths', as well as the idea of 'postindividualistic' or intertextual 'self'. Also the blurring of boundaries and the questioning of established hierarchies can be seen as a postmodern feature, and this already becomes apparent in my discussion about The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde.