Restu Wahyuning Asih* -  TribunnewsWiki, Indonesia


Mythical and historical stories were mushroomingly adapted into movies. However, intertextuality is proven to be an obstacle in the adaptation process since adaptation might trigger losses on the meaning of the original works.Addressing this issue, this descriptive qualitative research attempts to reveal (1) the types of intertextuality found from the Sagas of Ragnar Lodbrok by Ben Waggoner and its TV-Series Version: Vikings through the characterization of Ragnar Lodbrok, (2) how is intertextuality presented in the Sagas of Ragnar Lodbrok by Ben Waggoner and its TV-Series Version: Vikings through the characterization of Ragnar Lodbrok. Intertextuality theory by Fitzsimmons (2013) and characterization theory by Bernardo (2015) were applied to answer these problems. The data of this research were words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and visualizations, considered to reflect the characters of the story. The data were taken from the Sagas of Ragnar Lodbrok and Vikings TV series. The data were analyzed by employing Spradley’s componential analysis. Symbolic Interactionism approach was applied in this research to reveal how characters were treated as a symbolic meaning in intertextual domain. Derived from the analysis, this research unveils three types of intertextuality namely optional, obligatory, and accidental. The data shows that optional intertextuality is the most common type of intertextuality found from this research. Characterization of Ragnar was intertextually presented through thirteen manners or types with what others say and physical visualization as the recurring types. These findings indicate that a shift on perspective occurs. This shift signifies how Ragnar Lodbrok is differently treated to meet the distinctive features of the media in which the story occurs and the users of the media.


Key words: Intertextuality, Ragnar Lodbrok, Characterization, Symbolic Interactionism

  1. References
  2. Aksan, N. (2009). Procedia- Social and Behaviour Sciences. (Online) , (
  3. Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality. Routledge.
  4. Baetens, J., & Sánchez-Mesa, D. (2015). Literature in the expanded field: intermediality at the crossroads of literary theory and comparative literature. Interfaces. Image Texte Language, (36).
  5. Barthes, R. (2001). “From Work to Text”, The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism,(Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. Et al.). W. W. Norton and Company, New York and London, pp.1470-1475.
  6. Barthes, R. (2001). “The Death of the Author”. The Norton Anthology of Theory andCriticism. (Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. Et al). W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London,pp.1466-1470.
  7. Bernardo, K. (2015). Types of Characters in Fiction.
  8. Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction.Contemporary Sociological Thought, 91.
  9. Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead.
  10. Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Univ of California Press.
  11. Bø, Olav. "Hólmganga and Einvigi: Scandinavian Forms of the Duel." Medieval Scandinavia 2 (1969) 132-148.
  12. Brown, Blain. (2002). Cinematography : Theory and Practice. Routledge.
  13. Conliffee, Ciaran. (2016.) Egil Skallagrimsson, Warrior Poet. Headstuff (online), accessed at July 11th 2019)
  14. Creswell, John W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008). hlm. 245-246
  15. Crouch, David (2002). The Normans: the History of a Dynasty. London: Hambledon and London. ISBN 1 85285 387 5
  16. Davidson, Hilda Roderick Ellis. (1988.) Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe: Early Scandinavian and Celtic Religions
  17. Downham, C. (2011). Viking identities in Ireland: it's not all black and white. Medieval Dublin. Dublin, 11, 185-201.

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2021-06-13
Published: 2021-06-30
Section: Articles
Article Statistics: 65 23