Intermediality, Intertextuality and Remediation: A Literary Studies Perspective on Intermediality

Summary

Rajewsky addresses the terminological and conceptual confusion surrounding intermediality by proposing a systematic typology from a literary studies perspective. She distinguishes between a broad understanding of intermediality (any phenomenon involving more than one medium — essentially a fundamental condition of all mediated communication) and a narrow understanding (specific, analysable instances of media crossing). Within the narrow sense, she identifies three subcategories: (1) medial transposition — the transformation of a media product from one medium to another (e.g., film adaptation of a novel); (2) media combination — the combination or merger of at least two conventionally distinct media in a single artefact (e.g., opera, film, comics, sound art); (3) intermedial references — a medium using its own means to reference or evoke another medium (e.g., a novel that is “cinematic” in its technique). She draws a sustained parallel to the intertextuality debate in literary theory, tracing how Kristeva and Bakhtin’s broad notion of intertextuality (every text is a mosaic of other texts) was narrowed by later scholars into specific, analysable instances of text-to-text reference. The same narrowing, she argues, is necessary for intermediality to become a productive analytical category rather than a vague theoretical umbrella. She also engages critically with Bolter and Grusin’s remediation concept, noting its strengths but arguing it is too broad and media-unspecific for detailed intermedial analysis.

Key Contributions

• Establishes three clear subcategories of intermediality (medial transposition, media combination, intermedial references) that can be applied analytically to specific works
• Distinguishes broad vs narrow intermediality — the former as theoretical premise, the latter as workable analytical tool
• Draws a productive analogy between intermediality debates and the intertextuality debate (Kristeva/Bakhtin broad sense vs Genette/Riffaterre narrow sense)
• Critiques Bolter and Grusin’s remediation as too broad — it captures a general dynamic but does not provide tools for analysing specific intermedial configurations
• Argues for the importance of media-specificity in intermedial analysis: what makes a particular medium distinct matters for understanding what happens when media cross

Methods

• Theoretical analysis and literature review from comparative literature / literary studies perspective
• Sustained analogy between intermediality and intertextuality as conceptual frameworks
• Critical engagement with Bolter & Grusin (1999), Wolf (1999), Muller (1996), and other intermediality theorists
• Taxonomy construction: deriving subcategories from existing usage patterns and theoretical needs

Connections to Active Projects

AutoTonnetz: Rajewsky’s three subcategories provide precise language for describing what AutoTonnetz does. The instrument is primarily an example of media combination — sound (MIDI) and light (LEDs) are combined in a single artefact, generated from the same underlying process (cellular automata on Tonnetz geometry). It is NOT medial transposition (AutoTonnetz does not “translate” the Tonnetz from one medium to another — though the Tonnetz itself has been transposed from paper diagram to interactive interface, which is a separate analytical point). It may contain intermedial references if, for example, the LED patterns evoke musical notation or the MIDI output evokes visual rhythm patterns. The taxonomy helps clarify different levels at which intermediality operates in the system.

Organised Sound: The perception study benefits from Rajewsky’s framework because it clarifies what kind of intermedial phenomenon is being studied. The study examines media combination — how listeners perceive the combination of sound and light from a single source. This is distinct from studying medial transposition (e.g., how well a sonic idea translates to visual form) or intermedial reference (e.g., whether the light patterns feel “musical”). By specifying the subcategory, the theoretical framing of the paper becomes more precise. Rajewsky’s insistence on media-specificity also supports the argument that the specific material qualities of LEDs and MIDI synthesised sound matter for how the combination is perceived — you cannot analyse the intermedial relationship in the abstract.

Suggested Reading

• Bolter & Grusin (1999) — Remediation: Understanding New Media (the remediation concept Rajewsky critiques and extends)
• Wolf (1999) — The Musicalization of Fiction (intermedial references in literature — one of the specific cases Rajewsky discusses)
• Ellestrom (2010) — The Modalities of Media (builds on Rajewsky’s work with a more systematic modality-based framework)
• Kristeva (1969) — Semeiotike (the original broad intertextuality concept that Rajewsky parallels)
• Genette (1982) — Palimpsestes (the narrowing of intertextuality that Rajewsky uses as methodological precedent)