What do you think?
Rate this book
Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree
By definition, a palimpsest is “a written document, usually on vellum or parchment, that has been written upon several times, often with remnants of erased writing still visible.” Palimpsests (originally published in France in 1982), one of Gérard Genette’s most important works, examines the manifold relationships a text may have with prior texts. Genette describes the multiple ways a later text asks readers to read or remember an earlier one. In this regard, he treats the history and nature of parody, antinovels, pastiches, caricatures, commentary, allusion, imitations, and other textual relations.
Gérard Genette is one of the most original and influential literary critics of modern France. He is the major practitioner of narratological criticism, a pioneer in structuralism, and a much-admired literary historian. Such works as Narrative Discourse and Mimologics (Nebraska 1995) have established his international reputation as a literary theorist of the first order.
Gérard Genette is one of the most original and influential literary critics of modern France. He is the major practitioner of narratological criticism, a pioneer in structuralism, and a much-admired literary historian. Such works as Narrative Discourse and Mimologics (Nebraska 1995) have established his international reputation as a literary theorist of the first order.
508 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
40 people are currently reading
783 people want to read
About the author
Gérard Genette
67 books60 followersGenette was largely responsible for the reintroduction of a rhetorical vocabulary into literary criticism, for example such terms as trope and metonymy. Additionally his work on narrative, best known in English through the selection Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, has been of importance.[2] His major work is the multi-part Figures series, of which Narrative Discourse is a section. His trilogy on textual transcendence, which has also been quite influential, is composed of Introduction à l'architexte (1979), Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (1982), and Paratexts. Thresholds of interpretation (1997).[3]
His international influence is not as great as that of some others identified with structuralism, such as Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss; his work is more often included in selections or discussed in secondary works than studied in its own right. Terms and techniques originating in his vocabulary and systems have, however, become widespread, such as the term paratext for prefaces, introductions, illustrations or other material accompanying the text, or hypotext for the sources of the text.
His international influence is not as great as that of some others identified with structuralism, such as Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss; his work is more often included in selections or discussed in secondary works than studied in its own right. Terms and techniques originating in his vocabulary and systems have, however, become widespread, such as the term paratext for prefaces, introductions, illustrations or other material accompanying the text, or hypotext for the sources of the text.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 10, 2025
I read this as a follow up to Paratexts, but wish I had not: hypertextuality, paratextuality, metatextuality, architextuality ... If there is one thing a deconstructionist loves more than a too long sentence with too many commas, it is a label or category.
October 17, 2021
Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré
Yes, Genette's literary theory is rather, well, theoretical, but it's a very useful tool to ponder how texts interact with each other, namely what different types of interaction exists and to what end. I'm particularly fascinated by the idea of self-pastiche, but there is a lot more to discover. Genette, this widely read daredevil, gives tons (and I mean: tons) of exemaples, mainly taken from French literature, and it's helpful, but also exhausting: There are just so. many. thoughts and ideas packed in those 80 short chapters.
A must-read for people who want to dive into literary theory.
Yes, Genette's literary theory is rather, well, theoretical, but it's a very useful tool to ponder how texts interact with each other, namely what different types of interaction exists and to what end. I'm particularly fascinated by the idea of self-pastiche, but there is a lot more to discover. Genette, this widely read daredevil, gives tons (and I mean: tons) of exemaples, mainly taken from French literature, and it's helpful, but also exhausting: There are just so. many. thoughts and ideas packed in those 80 short chapters.
A must-read for people who want to dive into literary theory.
January 25, 2019
I finished it! I finished it! I feel as if I've climbed a mountain -- it was hard going up and I often wanted to turn back, but now that I'm at the top I quite admire the view.
Palimpsests could have been shorter. A lot of length could have been cut by the use of more straight-forward language -- as with all literary theory, most of the golden nuggets of knowledge were couched in distracting verbiage. I could have done with a few more female authors and scholars thrown into the mix, but hey, we got three. Yes, I counted -- Julie Kristeva, Barbara Johnson, and Jane Austen got one mention each. And, finally, fewer "annoying diversions" (Genette's words!) would have been appreciated. That said, I've come out of this with thirteen pages of handwritten notes and a greater understanding of literary texts.
I find that theory often upsets me because so much of it feels like utter, well, bullsh*t. I am happy to report that Genette's work does not fall into this category. While I certainly felt that he went on a bit long, his ideas concerning hypo- and hypertexts are sound. His categorizations, which he freely admits do blend into each other in many places, hold up to testing with texts that I actually know (ah, yes, another difficulty of this book was my lack of familiarity with both neoclassical French literature and French literature from the 1930s).
While I can't say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, I feel that I've really accomplished something. The theory espoused in Palimpsests will certainly aid me in my own work on adaptation. And, Genette is a personable writer. His wit shines through his writing. He is funny, he is insightful. He never forgets that he writes about, as he says, games. Games that can have high, meaningful stakes -- or not. When an author picks up a pen to rewrite/adapt/comment on/parody another work, that author is doing so, in some sense or another, playfully. As Genette says, "The pleasure of the hypertext is also a game." It's a practice of reusing existing structures, and 'tinkering' about with them to produce something new. Perhaps that's something as inconsequential as a Christmas panto, or perhaps its James Joyces' Ulysses.
I'm excited to think more on this book and its relation to the adaptations I study.
Palimpsests could have been shorter. A lot of length could have been cut by the use of more straight-forward language -- as with all literary theory, most of the golden nuggets of knowledge were couched in distracting verbiage. I could have done with a few more female authors and scholars thrown into the mix, but hey, we got three. Yes, I counted -- Julie Kristeva, Barbara Johnson, and Jane Austen got one mention each. And, finally, fewer "annoying diversions" (Genette's words!) would have been appreciated. That said, I've come out of this with thirteen pages of handwritten notes and a greater understanding of literary texts.
I find that theory often upsets me because so much of it feels like utter, well, bullsh*t. I am happy to report that Genette's work does not fall into this category. While I certainly felt that he went on a bit long, his ideas concerning hypo- and hypertexts are sound. His categorizations, which he freely admits do blend into each other in many places, hold up to testing with texts that I actually know (ah, yes, another difficulty of this book was my lack of familiarity with both neoclassical French literature and French literature from the 1930s).
While I can't say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, I feel that I've really accomplished something. The theory espoused in Palimpsests will certainly aid me in my own work on adaptation. And, Genette is a personable writer. His wit shines through his writing. He is funny, he is insightful. He never forgets that he writes about, as he says, games. Games that can have high, meaningful stakes -- or not. When an author picks up a pen to rewrite/adapt/comment on/parody another work, that author is doing so, in some sense or another, playfully. As Genette says, "The pleasure of the hypertext is also a game." It's a practice of reusing existing structures, and 'tinkering' about with them to produce something new. Perhaps that's something as inconsequential as a Christmas panto, or perhaps its James Joyces' Ulysses.
I'm excited to think more on this book and its relation to the adaptations I study.
June 4, 2013
One of the best works of literary criticism I've read in a while. Organized into 80 (short) chapters, Palimpsests gives a great overview of how texts relate to other texts, from ancient attempts to (re)write what happened between the Iliad and the Odyssey, to John Barth and Oulipo and other "postmodern" fiction writers. Ever the good structuralist, he provides some handy charts, taxonomies, and neologisms throughout.
But don't be fooled by this "structuralist" label: the tone of Genette's tome is modest and self-deprecating throughout, subverting the potential criticisms of deconstructionists. Genette himself admits that his taxonomies are shaped by his personal preferences, and states at the outset that his goal is to blur and erase the boundaries between the neat little categories he lays out. Genette is also eminently quotable, and I can only applaud the translators for rendering the intricacies of his style in English.
But don't be fooled by this "structuralist" label: the tone of Genette's tome is modest and self-deprecating throughout, subverting the potential criticisms of deconstructionists. Genette himself admits that his taxonomies are shaped by his personal preferences, and states at the outset that his goal is to blur and erase the boundaries between the neat little categories he lays out. Genette is also eminently quotable, and I can only applaud the translators for rendering the intricacies of his style in English.
February 7, 2019
Long but useful. Thank God for Genette's subtle humor...
June 1, 2014
At the end of the introductory section (the first seven chapters) Genette warns that the book will consist of a series of examples filled with "annoying digressions or welcome diversions" (30). I would emphasize 'annoying digressions' in most instances. Now, I think Genette's analysis is good and interesting, but I am not entirely sure because this book is terrible at fleshing out its examples. If I had a vast knowledge of ancient Greek, ancient Roman, and classic French literature many of the examples here would have made a lot more sense to me, but as it was I read through them without getting the point that the example was trying to make. Now, I don't think the ideas were over my head, because when Genette explained the various types of imitative and transformative literary works--hypertexts that exist in some kind of relation to a hypotext that precedes and in some way inspires them. The problem i have with how Genette uses examples is that he doesn't explain his comparisons, but he relies on the reader to know the hypotext (and he sometimes doesn't even state what that source is) and sometimes the hypertext well enough to simply understand how the two texts relate to one another and how the hypertext reworks the hypotext. If a reader (like myself) doesn't have a thorough prior knowledge, much of the impact of the example is lost, and unfortunately the changes Genette is talking about would require a careful and thorough reading of the texts to understand, which makes secondary research to follow his argument impractical, particularly for someone in my position who needs to read a lot of material for a dissertation that isn't about classic French lit.
One thing I did like about this book is the short chapters, which helped make it feel like I was moving steadily (though not quickly) through this long, dense tome of a text.
One thing I did like about this book is the short chapters, which helped make it feel like I was moving steadily (though not quickly) through this long, dense tome of a text.
August 29, 2012
taxonomy of the hypertext (a text which alludes to, pays homage to, parodies, transforms, etc. an earlier literary work) - really interesting and way way way too long
could've said what he needed to say in 40 pages
could've said what he needed to say in 40 pages
October 8, 2025
La densità del pensiero di Genette è quasi impenetrabile all'apparenza, ma una volta afferrato il ritmo e il framework della sua analisi, il viaggio è veramente fra i più divertenti, appassionanti e illuminanti che si possano mai intraprendere. Il rigore di un saggio e lo spirito - talvolta giocoso - di un vero appassionato lettore.
Nonostante la ricchezza di informazioni e l'erudizione sconfinata di Genette, non c'è mai snobismo o intellettualismo. Anzi, penso che siano proprio il divertimento e il gusto per la letteratura emergere prepotentemente fra le (molte) pagine di questo saggio. La letteratura, sembra dirci, a ragione, Genette, anche quella più rilevante e più alta, forze specialmente quella più rilevante e più alta, è prima di tutto gioco combinatorio, e qualche volta divinatorio.
Nonostante la ricchezza di informazioni e l'erudizione sconfinata di Genette, non c'è mai snobismo o intellettualismo. Anzi, penso che siano proprio il divertimento e il gusto per la letteratura emergere prepotentemente fra le (molte) pagine di questo saggio. La letteratura, sembra dirci, a ragione, Genette, anche quella più rilevante e più alta, forze specialmente quella più rilevante e più alta, è prima di tutto gioco combinatorio, e qualche volta divinatorio.
October 25, 2023
Strutturalismo a parte (devi esser davvero un tossico se pensi di poter inscatolare la letteratura intera in uno schema di etichette, ma capisco il contesto in cui è stato scritto) è una delle opere più illuminanti, complete e complesse che abbia letto sulla creazione della Letteratura di tutte le epoche. Poi Genette è proprio simpatico a volte.
April 29, 2020
A good book for Intertextual studies with French literary examples. Would have liked the author to discuss intertext and homages more. Seems to overlook that.
July 3, 2020
كتاب دسم ولا متعة فيه لمن يريد وجبة قرائية خفيفة إن صح التعبير.
July 29, 2022
Interesante aproximación al mundo de la intertextualidad.
November 14, 2024
si c'est pas le meilleur ouvrage critique de Genette ??? quel goat
December 29, 2024
I have got to stop reading French literary theory and being surprised by impenetrable language. Broadly agreed with it and found it interesting though so what can you do!
February 12, 2022
Je ne suis pas forcément une fan d'essais, je trouve cela ennuyeux habituellement. J'ai lu celui-ci dans le cadre de mon mémoire autour de l'intertextualité d'un conte spécifique. J'ai trouvé cela très intéressant car je l'ai littéralement dévoré en 6 jours. Certes, c'est un brin ennuyant mais Genette nous offre un ouvrage très riche en exemples pour aborder les différents points autour de l'intertextualité ou plutôt la transtextualité.
Ce livre est une bible sur ce thème et il montre bien que les textes ont tous une réécriture ou est la réécriture d'un autre texte. Cependant, cette notion n'est pas uniquement présente dans la littérature : elle est aussi dans les autres formes de l'art comme la musique, la peinture, etc.
Pour conclure, je ne peux que recommander cet essai si vous êtes intéressés par les réécritures. Je me doute que beaucoup ne le liront pas car c'est dense et que cela ne les intéresse pas. En revanche, je recommande fortement aux étudiants littéraires qui ont l'habitude de connaître Genette pour Figures. Pour moi, Palimpsestes est plutôt the référence dans sa bibliographie.
Ce livre est une bible sur ce thème et il montre bien que les textes ont tous une réécriture ou est la réécriture d'un autre texte. Cependant, cette notion n'est pas uniquement présente dans la littérature : elle est aussi dans les autres formes de l'art comme la musique, la peinture, etc.
Pour conclure, je ne peux que recommander cet essai si vous êtes intéressés par les réécritures. Je me doute que beaucoup ne le liront pas car c'est dense et que cela ne les intéresse pas. En revanche, je recommande fortement aux étudiants littéraires qui ont l'habitude de connaître Genette pour Figures. Pour moi, Palimpsestes est plutôt the référence dans sa bibliographie.
Read
March 31, 2021Etonnamment accessible dans son écriture, et très intéressant !
Je n'ai pris le temps d'en lire que les passages nécessaires à mon mémoire, mais j'ai passé un tel bon moment que je pense y revenir plus longuement pour le plaisir.
Je n'ai pris le temps d'en lire que les passages nécessaires à mon mémoire, mais j'ai passé un tel bon moment que je pense y revenir plus longuement pour le plaisir.
May 27, 2024
Merci Gérard pour ce moment de délactation. Ce fut un moment fun. La bise.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews