Intertextuality

I'm currently reading "Children's Literature comes of Age" and the last chapter is on intertextuality, and the author, Nikolajeva, discusses how intertextuality is different that comparative analysis. She says both look at works in juxtaposition, but that comparative literature looks more at influence and intertextuality looks more at meaning. However, then she proceeds to "do" intertextual criticism by looking at how books. meanings have influenced other books' meanings. I feel like something is missing.

If we really want to look at something in juxtaposition and we want to find similarities within the texts, it seems we should be able to do that with any types of texts. We shouldn't have to limit ourselves to genres that would have influenced themselves. For me, intertextuality should look like more of a hypertext connection. These two works that have nothing in common have so much in common because of this kenotype. But if something is a true kenotype then we have to compare works that wouldn't necessarily have had influence on one another. Sometimes I think influence is a point of connection, but with intertextuality, the newness results from how the connected items might be used differently through time. In Hansel and Gretel candy is used to draw the children to the wicked witch. In The Chocolate War, candy is used to symbolize the evil manipulative powers that be. It is no longer a "special" thing to see candy, but candy still works to manipulate behavior. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, candy manipulates behavior, but can we label Willie Wonka evil? Finally, in Harry Potter, candy is the symbol of Dumbeldore, the positive headmaster. This same symbol exists but it works differently-- Were any of these works influenced by others, possibly, but we don't see that influence as a model.