TIBOR ŽILKA born on 29 January 1939…

I. Author Information/ Biography Studied Slovak and Hungarian at the Faculty of Comenius University in Bratislava (1957-1962), and the Faculty of Arts in Prague (1961), where he attended lectures of literary theory. Since 1961 he started working as an assistant at the Faculty of Education in Nitra. Here, one of the founders and the first member of the literary department, known as the Cabinet of literary communication. In the years 1969-1976 he worked in this institute as a researcher. 1976 passed the Department of Slovak Language and Literature, where he teaches stylistics. In 1984 he became associate professor and in 1994 a university professor.

I. Author Information/ Biography He is now a professor of the theory and history of Slovak literature in the Institute of Literary and Artistic Communication Faculty of Humanities, University of Constantine the Philosopher. As a recognized expert semiotics, stylistics, narratology and poetics lectures at several universities and scientific institutions abroad (Berlin, Budapest, Debrecen, Katowice, Warsaw, Tallinn, Lipetsk, Wroclaw, Prague, Opava, Ostrava, Szeged, Vienna). Currently, the focus on research modernism in prose, partly in the other arts.

II. Importance Investigator grant project intertextuality in modern and postmodern art (1997-1999). Co-project of National Literature in the era of globalization (the relationship of particular and universal in literary work) (2004-2006). He is a member of the Club of Independent Writers Association of Writers in Slovakia. He is a member of the Commission for the Slav poetics at the International Committee of Slavists. He is chairman of committee for doctoral studies for the Hungarian language and literature at the University of J. Selye in Komarno.

Žilka’s Literary Point of View Literature is marked, both stylistically and ideologically, by a reliance on such literary conventions as fragmentation, paradox, unreliable narrators, often unrealistic and downright impossible plots, games, parody, paranoia, dark humor and authorial self-reference.  There are no outright meanings in the novels, stories and poems, and, instead, there are the multiple meanings, or a complete lack of meaning, within a single literary work. He also rejects the boundaries between 'high' and 'low' forms of art and literature, as well as the distinctions between different genres and forms of writing and storytelling.

T. Žilka and Translation Intertextual ties between texts are widespread phenomenon, therefore it´s natural that they have become subject of interest of many critics. Mutual relationships between texts, mainly labeled by the term inetrtextuality seem to be motive factor of contemporary liteary criticism. However, the province of this phenomenon is not restricted only to literature, intertextuality has long time ago gone beyond its competence and it has equally important function also in film

T. Žilka and Translation Probably because we encounter intertextuality nearly everywhere, it really has wideranging scope of competence and the way individual theoreticians point its essence differs a lot. The term intertextuality is used in narrower and broader contexts. When it is employed in general then its specific meaning disappears, it becomes redundant and not very persuasive. And although it is necessary to accept the opinion that each text refers to other texts, to a group of texts that originated earlier and have been published, it has been proved how much it is necessary to distinguish the nucleus of intertextuality from its marginal manifestations.

In his article Intertextuality in Slovak Prose And Drama, Zilka makes the point about intertextuality clear: To sum up our considerations on intertextuality: we can classify intertextuality in two independent meanings - there is a narrower and broader definition. If we understand it in a narrower sense it concerns only a specific pretext and posttext (hypotext and hypertext). In a broader sense it is an intertextual link between a posttext (of a specific literary work) and the whole system of pretexts (genre model, mythical background, biblical story, scholarly, journalistic, administrative texts or speeches)

Yani; Yazar, metinlerarasılığın iki farklı boyutta (geniş bağlam ve dar bağlam) ele alınabileceğini vurgularken şunu dişe getirir; geniş bağlamda (genel anlama odaklı) ele alındığında içerik, barındırdığı spesifik anlamlardan bağımsız değerlendirilebilir. Bu durumda ise fazla ağdalı-artık ifadelerle donatılmış olacağından inandırıcıcılığını ve ilginçliğini kaybeder. Ancak dar anlamda ele alındığında ise metin sadece kaynak ve erek metin arasındaki sığ ilişkiden ibaret kalır. Öte yandan, her bir metnin kendisinden önce yazılmış olan diğer metinlere referans ettiğini de varsayacak olursak metinlerarasılığın özünü-çekirdeğini detay göstergelerden arındırmanın ne kadar anlamlı ve önemli olacağını da görmüş oluruz.