What I Meant to Post

I know nothing about horses, but I will pretend to follow your "other" argument for just a moment; you said:
"Incidentally, intertextuality is not dialogic because the reference to
> the secondary text is being used to affirm the authorial viewpoint.
> Even when the authorial viewpoint is seeking to undermine something
> current--like, say, a feminist poem that references the experience of
> Sulpicia to emphasize the unchanging position of women in society--the
> references to Sulpicia's text ultimately support the contemporary
> author's main point. So there's no dialog going on in the
> poem--everything moves to one, unified meaning. The fact that the poem
> is posing a question to society about the position of women isn't
> really relevant either, because the poem itself only has one voice.
> Make sense? No? Crap. This has to make sense so I can distinguish
> between it and revisionist mythology, which is intertextual AND
> dialogic, and if I don't find a way to make this make sense I'm going
> to have to say Batstone is just plain wrong, and my thesis committee
> KNOWS Batstone. They aren't going to side with me over him. But if I
> can prove his argument applies to a specific type of intertextuality
> only, then I can present my idea as an extension of his work.
> Brilliant, isn't it? Except the part where it doesn't make sense,
> obviously."

I haven't read Batstone, but are you suggesting that her/his theories relate to a more dialogic approach to poetry than someone else who is arguing that intertextuality = a dialogic approach? [Which I agree, the equation cannot be that simple.] If so, I believe your argument can be made quite successfully--ironically, if you can use Batstone as support. Ha!
Regardless, (ie. if I'm an ass and I misread your whole idea) I find your statement about secondary texts which states, "ultimately support[ing] the contemporary
> author's main point. So there's no dialog going on in the
> poem--everything moves to one, unified meaning. The fact that the poem
> is posing a question to society about the position of women isn't
> really relevant either, because the poem itself only has one voice,"
facinating--to be sure. :-)
Since you are also studing response theory, how can you claim that even a poem that ultimately engages in only one voice (within the space of the poem, I assume?) is/becomes irrelevant when every poem is actually read in the context of "other" (outside) poetry? Even if the poem is a singular voice, it *adds* to the dialogue of various voices from times/spaces, as that dialogue is interpretted from the reference point of a given "reader"? Aiya. I need to diagram what I am trying to say . . . which is that no voice can participate outside of a dialogue? because it is not heard without sometype of interpretation (even if it is a silent interpretation)?

I'm just trying to argue.

Actually--your subject matter sounds facinating. More beers!
And considering my last post, I'm blogging this to redeem myself.