Northanger Abbey and Don Quixote?

I went into the archives of one of my favorite authors for my recent bout of classics reading—Jane Austen.

Northanger Abbey

I could reminisce over Darcy or smile ruefully at the caddish behavior of Willoughby (Is it me, or did it seem that Willoughby never got punished for taking advantage of Colonel Brandon's young ward?), but what I really want to talk about is Northanger Abbey. It's one of her earlier works.

What's great about it is Austen's very overt and biting sarcasm when parodying works that were common and wildly popular during her time, Romantic and Gothic novels. In making fun of the formulaic, banal characterizations of the unrealisitically noble and virtuous heroines destined to cross paths with a hero that populated the novels of Austen's time, she sets her own protagonist up as an anti-heroine of sorts from her upbringing, but goes on to add: "But when a young lady is to be a heroine, the perverseness of forty surrounding families cannot prevent her. Something must and will happen to throw a hero in her way."

Here's the thing: It wouldn't be as funny if you didn't understand what it was she was parodying. Thank goodness for annotated editions.

Don Quixote

Interestingly, Austen's tone in Northanger Abbey reminds me of Cervantes' tone in Don Quixote. Similarly, this is a novel which is a parody of other genres which were highly romanticized and also wildly popular during his time—novels of knight errantry, pastoral novels and picaresque novels. When Alonso Quijano dons the title Don Quixote de la Mancha, it is only significant if one knows Cervantes was playing on the popular Amadis de Gaula.

Intertextuality

Another element both novels have in common is intertextuality. There are actually references and even quotations in both novels from the works they are parodying. In both, literature itself also plays an important role. Don Quixote goes crazy from reading too many novels of knight errantry, while Catherine Morland becomes almost too enthralled with The Mysteries of Udolpho.

And so . . .

I always like to tie my literary musings in with the Bible. There is a school of thought that the Bible "says what it means and means what it says." But there are a lot of things that influence meaning. The Bible itself is rife with intertextuality, some references are contained in the canon (when passages in the New Testament reference passages in the Old, for example), but others are not. How can Don Quixote or Northanger Abbey have significance if the extra-textual elements they play off of remain unconsidered? How can the Bible say what it means if the reader is unaware of the extra-textual elements it's referring to?