INTERTEXTUALITY OF THE PERSONOSPHERE AS A FACTOR OF META-GENRE (

. The article under studies deals with the issue of regeneration of genre forms of science fiction literature through its evolution. In the context of topical issues of poetics, it outlines the genrological status of science fiction and fantasy in terms of genre modifications – genre, genre variety, sub-genre, mega-genre, and meta-genre. Particular emphasis has been placed on the fact that the evolution of science fiction into a meta-genre format is due to a number of factors, such as the simulative nature of the chronotope of possible and parallel worlds, the change in the anthropological vector of texts, and the involvement of samples of other art forms (intermedial components). In addition, the activation of intertextual narratives in the personosphere (which becomes an important parameter of the meta-genre) has been identified as a marker of the genre evolution of fantasy. The creative activity of the American classic of science fiction prose Clifford Simak (1904

the reader's attention is mainly focused on the intertextual parameters of the personosphere, which significantly expands the hyper-real chronotope of the science fiction world.The works by William Shakespeare are identified as the prototexts for fantasy texts.Interpreted by Simak, the Shakespearean imagological narratives are implemented through quotations, reminiscences, anthropological allusions (the use of Shakespeare's characters' names), as well as through the introduction of the figure of Shakespeare himself into the fantasy personosphere.What is more, the figure of the English classic occasionally appears as the very center of the personosphere, its confocal axis.It has been determined in the article that the mystified and ironic story of Shakespeare's timeless existence ferments the internal content of the fantasy text.Besides, the personosphere of a fantasy novel with several fictional narratives also includes the classic's texts, such as "Hamlet", "Twelfth Night", "The End Praises the End", "The Comedy of Errors", "King Lear", "Macbeth", "Othello", "Pericles", "The Taming of the Shrew", "Richard III", and "Titus Andronicus".In this case, in Simak's "Shakespeare's Planet", they perform the function of additional (implicit) narratives, and, consequently, as a particular (intertextual) link in the personosphere.In conclusion, the article claims that the consistent generation of new literary genre formats in the field of the cultural continuum is an immanent feature of the complex literary process, which can be fully realized only with the help of the reader's rich receptive background.
The world literary process is extraordinarily variable.This variability is mostly recognized in the basics, paradigms and terminology of literary theory.In particular, the contemporary situation in linguistic culture proves an accelerated integration of other types of arts into literature, which, consequently, has great impact on the evolution of contemporary genre forms and, accordingly, requires new criteria of assessment.
Fantastic literature, as a rule, focuses specifically on the search for answers to questions related to the global aspects of the ontology and axiology of the individual and the whole civilization.The writers' attempts to respond to the topical issues have stimulated the regeneration of genre forms.The latter, by means of their evolution, are capable of providing some new, creative designs.In literature, the above idea may be implemented as an interaction (or even integration) of possible, parallel and fictional worlds, as layers of multiple chronotypes or as a rhizomorphism of personosphere due to the phenomena of intertextuality and intermediality, attesting to genre evolution.
Clifford Simak (1904Simak ( -1988) also belongs to the list of the abovementioned eminent writers.He is considered as one of the leading representatives of the so-called "triumphant" science fiction authors and is frequently referred to as the "banner bearer of J. Campbell's generation."By integrating different genres of fantastic literature, C. Simak managed to "outrun" the efforts of New Wave American science fiction writers.It should be noted that C. Simak was rather sensitive to changes in society and culture, ironically over the critics' vain attempts to "restrict" fantastic genres (Ewald 2006: p. 5).His powerful creativity had considerable effect on the "prose model" genre of A. Azimov (Ewald 2006: 13).His writing manner was followed by J. Ballard (1930-2009), U. Le Guin (1929-2018), Ph. Dick (1928-1982), R. Zelazny (1937-1995), and L. Niven (1938).
The concept of intertextuality was introduced by J. Kristeva in 1967.It motivates a completely new reading of literary texts, since any of them (within this methodological approach) may be regarded as a "permutation of other texts" (Kristeva 1969).Hence, intertextuality is interpreted as borrowings from other texts, which "intersect and neutralize each other within the space of a text" (Kristeva 1969: p. 146).In this classic sense, the inter-text is not just a "mosaics of quotations," but a result of implementing "a peculiar strategy of text-formation," within which the cited discourses are present in the already existing texts, "intersecting and neutralizing each other" in the inter-text.The mechanism of an intertextual act is quite complicated, for this textual strategy "imposes a text over another text".At the same time, this encoding deepens the ontological, ideological, and thematic dimensions of the newly created text, as well as keeps up the connection with the "donor text" (in J. Derrida's terminology), thus complicating the process of its understanding of the fictional worlds.
Within the focus of this study, it is worth noting certain remarks by H. Kniazkov regarding the intertextual markers of C. Simak's science fiction.The scholar puts particular emphasis on the fact that in the writer's novels "the medieval Anglo-Saxon or Celtic myth is usually combined with the elements of biblical mythology, and eventually, almost entirely passes on to the level of symbolism" (Князьков 2000: p. 106).Apart from that, the major difference between the genres of fantasy and science fiction lies in the fact that the former contains intertextual references and "goes beyond the text" (see Паранюк 2019: p. 77).It is these intertextual components (allusions, reminiscences, transitive images) that extend the hyper-realistic chronotope of science fiction, supported by a number of intermediate modes.
According to Tz. Todorov's idea of predictable "reader's integration into the characters' world," (Todorov 1975: p. 30) the intertextual framework of fantasy genre (for instance, the texts by P. Anderson, J. Tolkien, N. Gaiman, J. Crowley, T. Pratchett, T. Williams), in spite of a considerable number of the characters invented by the authors themselves, also contains numerous images and motifs from W. Shakespeare's plays.This happens because of "Shakespeare's genius" (Bloom 1994: p. 60), which is most fully expressed in the way these images and motifs are created.Introduced into fantastic contexts, Shakespeare's images immediately become the object of the reader's reevaluation and are thus able to depict a "secondary world" (Тихомирова 2012: p. 176), thus extending the boundaries of fictional narratives of the text.
Most often, science fiction writers use "fantasy" prototexts (such as "A Midsummer Night's Dream", Macbeth", and "The Tempest"), because "Shakespeare's plays always hit the problem of interaction between the bordering worlds and their inhabitants, in particular, the peoples of immortal creatures <…> and mortal beings" (Тихомирова 2012: p. 176).Consequently, it is natural to design personosphere of classic fantasy (and more rarely of science fiction), relying on the intertextual narratives of the well-known samples.For example, E. Kantchura's (2009) analysis of the alternate worlds of T. Pratchett turns to Shakespeare's comedy "A Midsummer Night's Dream" to make a conclusion about a meta-textual effect of "double parody" (Канчура 2009: p. 205).That is, Apuleius -Shakespeare -Pratchett: A charming smile of Shakespeare's elves turns into an angry grin of Pans.Pratchett deprives his fairy-tale heroes of a romantic flare and reminds of the initial perception of elves as of an alien, incomprehensible folk (Канчура 2009: p. 208).
Thus, transitive images of extraordinary creatures, which were taken by Shakespeare from folklore context and introduced into literary space, make up the basis of personosphere of classical and modern fantasy.
The issues of genrological analytics and the aspects of genrological evolution, which are closely associated with the blurring and even destruction of the derivative genre canon, have been revealed at different times by S. Averintsev, M. Bakhtin, F. Brunetiere, O. Veselovsky, N. Kopystyanska, Tz.Todorov, O. Freidenberg, O. Chervinska, J. M. Schaeffer, and others.The most controversial issues are those related to the genrological "status" of science fiction (and fantasy, respectively): literary trend, type, genre, mega-genre, sub-genre, metagenre.
The change of matrix dominants in the system of science fiction epic types reflects a consistent reboot of the ideological and semantic content of the text, the "cooling" of the original form of the science fiction genre, different principles of constructing the personospere, and a specific plot design, which can be identified by only a few "genre logics".Hence, the genre matrix of fantasy appears to be a fundamentally "open" structure, requiring the reader to realize the ambiguity of the subtext.In this way, there takes place the transgression of the genre towards the meta-genre.
The concept of the meta-genre also requires certain theoretical and methodological consideration, especially when such "literary phenomena" as science fiction and fantasy "do not fit into the framework of a particular genre" (Ткаченко 2013: p. 164).In this relation, Ye.Vasyliev offers to differentiate a few "basic meta-genre concepts" (Васильєв 2017: p. 54).
It is supposed that the meta-genre covers a greater number of literary phenomena than the genre, thus demonstrating its "out-of-genre orientation".B. Ivanyuk states that the meta-genre, in particular parable, burlesque, utopia, dystopia, is "an out-of-genre feature that determines the typological similarity of different genre forms" (Іванюк 2001: p. 323) and is a specific manifestation of genre synthesis -"the tendency of genres to mutual attraction" (Іванюк 2001: p. 203).
Relying on a number of works, T. Bovsunivska compares the genre with the meta-genre and proposes the following chain: genusspeciesgenresub-genremodificationassimilation of the genre (Бовсунівська 2015).Aaccording to her, the meta-genre is marked with the following features: 1) archetype, myth, psychoanalytic construct or syllogism; 2) the coexistence between literary genus, types, genres and trends, types, genres of art, as well as literary, non-literary, and non-artistic ideological constructs; 3) the system of included genres; 4) the impossibility of assimilation (Бовсунівська 2015: p. 10).
The proposed scheme seems to be a rather convenient theoretical and methodological tool for analyzing any meta-genre varieties, including science fiction.
For example, A. Tkachenko refers to science fiction, utopia, detective, and dystopia as meta-genres, which in turn "are differentiated into classical concepts such as novel, story, short story, etc." (Ткаченко 2013: p. 167).The researcher points out that they are united by themes developed "at all levels of the genrological hierarchy: genus, species, genre, and their varieties" (Ткаченко 2013: p. 167).This list of genres should also include fantasy with its numerous varieties.
The poetics of fantastic meta-genres has been studied by such Ukrainian scientists as Ye.Kantchura (Канчура 2009) (Tychinina and Paranyuk 2018;Паранюк 2019;Tychinina and Paranyuk 2021).Due to the deformation of the known matrix, the so-called genre metamorphism, fantasy acquires a syncretic format of "extra-genre orientation", getting closer towards the parameters of the meta-genre as a special way of modeling reality.
Thus, the evolution of science fiction into a number of meta-genres is an obvious phenomenon today.The factors that record the peculiarities of this process include the simulative chronotope of possible and parallel worlds, a change in anthropological attitudes, the respective specificity of the construction of the personosphere and its impact on the genre parameters of the text, the functional weight of intertextual and intermedial components in modeling hyper-real time and space (see Паранюк 2019).
It is of note that C. Simak's novel, "Shakespeare's Planet", draws the reader's attention to the very parameters of personosphere: THERE were three of them, although sometimes there was only one of them.When that came about, less often than it should, the one was not aware there ever had been three, for the one was a strange melding of their personalities, When they became as one, the transformation was something more than a simple addition of the three, as if by this pooling of themselves there had been added a new dimension which made the sum of them greater than the whole (Simak 2015).
This "fusion" of Shakespeare and his Spirit takes place in the end of the C. Simak's novel "The Goblin Reservation", attesting to the deep intertextual connection between the works of American science fiction writer.
In this way, C. Simak draws his readers closer to the hermeneutics of his conceitsuch outstanding figures as Shakespeare appear to possess a particular sacredness: The holiness was a quality that could not be defined in words or delineated in a thought, for it was outside and beyond any sensation or accomplishment that the creature known as man could have conjured up even in the utmost exercise of his not inconsiderable imagination (Simak 2015).
Therefore, the criterion of true holiness is the existential death, which is also a prospect of a new beginning.The souls of such prominent personalities are implicated in the infinity of space and time, whereas the universe becomes their homeland: "Under this condition of unity they were kin to the stars and neighbor of the galaxies" (Simak 2015).Therefore, the very fact of C. Simak's appealing to the figure of Shakespeare seems rather logical and relevant: "Writing it is, most certainly: Shakespeare is the Canon.He sets the standards and the limits of literature" (Bloom 1994: p. 50).
L. Ginzburg reveals the ways of describing protagonists' behavior and characters' direct speech (both inner and outer), which may be regarded as stereotypes of the processes of their behavior (Гинзбург 1979: p. 4).Her concept is consistent with M. Hirschman's idea of of the specifics of author's language and that of his characters.It should be noted that the novel "Shakespeare's Planet" has quite a distinct, though not numerous personosphere, and its twists are mostly built up by means of the principle of polylogue about Shakespeare, which is responsible for plot arrangement of the dichotomous personospheric pairs.In this way, C. Simak integrates the figure of Shakespeare into the center of the plot of his novel.He outlines Shakespeare's confocal position, which resonates with other functions.
In other words, Shakespeare is such a dynamic character that, according to Yu. Lotman, he is divided into a paradigm-cluster of different characters (see Лотман 1992): all the characters in this text are either intertextual or symbolic.For instance, the focus on a close connection between Shakespeare and Carnivore (literally "Flesh-Eater") is quite indicative, as the latter image is associated with physiological sensuality, predator instincts, consumption of flesh, and deconstruction of all essences: He was human-tall and stood upon two legs.His arms, hanging limply at his side, did not end in hands, but in a nest of tentacles.He wore no clothing.His body was covered by a skimpy, molting coat of fur.That he was a male was aggressively apparent.His head appeared to be a bare skull.It was innocent of hair or fur, and the skin was tightly stretched over the structure of the bones.The jaws were heavy and elongated into a massive snout.Stabbing teeth, set in the upper jaw, protruded downward, somewhat like the fangs of the primitive saber-tooth of ancient Earth.Long, pointed ears, pasted against the skull, stood rigid, overtopping the bald, domed cranium.Each of the ears was tipped with a bright red tassle (Simak 2015).
Upon request of the dying Shakespeare, Carnivore's actions take on the format of Anthropophagy (Cannibalism), which may be interpreted as an apparent parody of a church ritual: "Your fangs must pierce the flesh in that small moment before death.You must not kill me, but eat me even as I die" (Simak 2015).Carnivore, who devours other forms of life, proudly confides that he has eaten Shakespeare: "The flesh only.<…> Careful not to eat the bones.<…> He was tough and stringy and not of a flavor that I relished.He had a strange taste to him" (Simak 2015).
To his mind, quick and pure death is far better than suffering, disease and old age: My prey must be always full of life and strength.But as one life to another, as one intelligence to another, I cannot refuse you.You say it is a holy thing, that I perform a priestly office and this is something from which one must never shrink, although every instinct in me cries out against the eating of a friend (Simak 2015).
This rather peculiar way of burying Shakespeare provokes the reader's predictable anticipation, and, undoubtedly, furthers the horizon of their expectations, which are later supplemented by narrative versions of both participants in the cannibal act -Carnivore and Shakespeare.The receptive focus of the text has been concentrated on the image of Carnivore for a long while.Calling himself "Shakespeare's best friend", he points out the latter's "otherness": "Not an ancient one at all, <…> although not really young, and he had a sickness in him.He described himself as human.He looked very much like you" (Simak 2015).Emphasizing the English playwright's unlimited capabilities, Carnivore refers to all human beings as Shakespeare's people: "I admire him very greatly.He could do many things" (Simak 2015).
In this manner, the author implements Shakespeare's confocal image.The narration about him seems to be the only focus of all comparisons: Shakespeare say humans also carnivores.But not as much as me.Shakespeare shared the meat I killed.Would have killed himself, but not as good as me.I glad to kill for Shakespeare (Simak 2015).
Carnivore constantly stresses the fact that Shakespeare has literally raised him, citing him as a moral example: "You go ahead of me <…> You are guest of mine.Shakespeare said guests all go first.I was guest of Shakespeare.He was here ahead of me" (Simak 2015).
The image of Carnivore is not accidental.His teleological essence is of intertextual nature: in one of Shakespeare's early tragedies, "Titus Andronicus" (1594), there is also a hyperbolized hint of cannibalism from Titus: Hark, villains!I will grind your bones to dust, And with your blood and it I'll make a paste, And of the paste a coffin I will rear And make two pasties of your shameful heads, And bid that strumpet, your unhallow'd dam, Like to the earth swallow her own increase.
In this way, C. Simak ensures an attraction value of the above figure in the world of characters of "Shakespeare's Planet".It moves all along the narrative space and is marked with the influence of a preliminary text.
L. Ginzburg noted that "any character may be a mystery, may receive temporary, false assessment" (Гинзбург 1979: p. 17).Hence, one of the most significant aspects of the personosphere is the presence of lacunae (the term by Khazagerov), which are filled with the reader's consciousness.Based on this concept, personosphere rests on the oppositions 'methem (Horton -Nicodemus, Shakespeare -Carnivore), "us -the others"/"own -strange" (Horton, Nicodemus -Shakespeare -Carnivore).
O. Kibalka, in this novel by C. Simak, chooses to focus her attention on depicting the cosmos, calling it an "air ocean".This fits perfectly into "the system of fictional details, assigned for creating a universal picture of the cosmic space as a star ocean" (Кибалка 2010: p. 33).In the novel, there is one more personospheric pairrobot Nicodemus arrives on a planet, very similar to Earth, together with the astronaut.Neglecting the criterion of time, these characters come out of the state of anabiosis, having spent 954 years, 8 months and 19 days on the Ship.
The integrity of personoshere (Shakespeare's acquaintance with Carnivore) is achieved by the author through a great deal of interesting facts that reveal the figure of Shakespeare.It turns out that the English playwright paved some paths on the planet and even taught Carnivore to speak the human language.Thus, he is being presented as an "organizing index" of the plot.The conversations between all characters inevitably touch upon the figure of Shakespeare, which is the most essential spiritual need: "But Shakespeare now is dead, and I miss him greatly.I am desolate without him" (Simak 2015).Horton regards Shakespeare as a very ancient man, who, unlike the others, came to the planet not on a space ship, but through the tunnel -a peculiar time portal: "Shakespeare try and I try, but we cannot fix it.Shakespeare pound upon it with his fists, he kick it with his feet, he yell at it, calling terrible names.Still it does not work" (Simak 2015).In this way, the main characters of the novel place Shakespeare in a timeless context, whereas the confocality of this figure, within the system of characters, makes it a very significant "intertextual paradigm".
Readers come across the allusion to W. Shakespeare in the text for the first time when Horton, Nicodemus and Carnivore see a smiling human skull (that undoubtedly belongs to Shakespeare), fastened over the door: "Among prehistoric people, there was ritual cannibalismdoing a true friend or a great man a special honor by the eating of him" (Simak 2015).A mystical and ironic story of Shakespeare's timeless existence determines the internal semantic content of the text.Certain fragments from "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" are embedded into the novel and serve, above all, an intertextual function, as well as present the narrative from the playwright's point of view.Emphasizing the historical distance, C. Simak imitates Horton's ignorance, who does not quite understand both spelling and abbreviations of the bibliographic description: "London.No, not London.Someplace else.No place I ever heard of.Maybe not on Earth" (Simak 2015).Looking through the pages of Shakespeare's works, Horton finds such plays as "Richard III", "The Comedy of Errors", "The Taming of the Shrew", "Twelfth Night", "Othello", "King Lear", and "Hamlet".Nevertheless, his particular attention is drawn by the so-called "marginalia" -the author's notes on the margins.
Here we see an obvious intertextual connection with the comedy "All's Well That Ends Well" (1623), whose author, according to H. Bloom, "rhetorically, has no equal; no more awesome panoply of metaphor exists" (Bloom 1994: 60).For comparison, in C. Simak's novel, it is scribbled on the margins of the quasi-Shakespearean edition: The pond stinks the worst today I've ever smelled it.It is an evil smell.Not just a bad smell, but an evil smell.As if it were alive, exuding evil.As if it hid in its depth some obscenity… (Simak 2015).
The above comment seems quite appropriate, for in Shakespeare's play, misfortunes are usually related to the smell of stale fish (the conversation between Parolles and the clown): "Truly, Fortune's displeasure is but sluttish, if it smell so strongly as thou speak'st of.I will henceforth eat no fish of Fortune's buttering.Pr'ythee, allow the wind" (Shakespeare, "All's Well").
Eventually, reader's attention is drawn to Shakespeare's tragedy "King Lear" (1606).Its intertextual potential (skillfully applied by C. Simak) is metaphorically connotative with the main idea of the prototext, whereby the passion for treasures is closely associated with King Lear's daughters: I found emeralds, weathered out of a ledge a mile or so below the spring.Just lying there, waiting to be picked up I filled my pockets with them.I don't know why I bothered.Here I am, a rich man, and it doesn't mean a thing (Simak 2015).
Another example is a remark in the lower margins of the tragedy "Macbeth" (1606), alluding to the story of an excessive desire for power.
The very last fragment, found by Horton, is rather eloquent regarding the "fairy-tale" narrative of the Shakespeare's play "Pericles, Prince of Tyre" (1609).It outlines the contradictions of human life and, at the same time, asserts the invincibility of positive principles (Cleon's words): Were I chief lord of all this spacious world, I'd give it to undo the deed.A lady, Much less in blood than virtue, yet a princess To equal any single crown o' the earth I' the justice of compare!O villain Leonine!Reading Shakespeare's comments, Horton concludes that the English Classic was a lonely, sick and frightened man with a superiority complex.This is why Horton even refers to him as "lost and insane".Furthermore, Shakespeare's collected works serve as a guide to finding treasure, and cause a fantastic event -Horton runs into Shakespeare's animated skull.In this connection, he articulates a rhetoric question: "Is this your spirit talking to me?Your shade?Your ghost?" (Simak 2015).Naturally, reader's receptive attention immediately responds to such an allusion, decoding the connection between the author's character (Shakespeare) and the character from the tragedy "Hamlet" (buffoon Yorick).Here, we find H.Bloom's statement that "Shakespeare is to the world's literature what Hamlet is to the imaginary domain of literary character: a spirit that permeates everywhere, that cannot be confined" (Bloom 1994: p. 52) to be rather relevant.
In "Shakespeare's Planet", the intertextual connection is clearly fixated at the end, when the skull humorously "winks", as if activating in the reader's consciousness Hamlet's infamous ironic monologue: Alas, poor Yorick!I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is!my gorge rims at it.Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft.Where be your gibes now? your gambols?your songs?your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?Not one now, to mock your own grinning?quite chap-fallen?(Shakespeare, "Hamlet").Reading Shakespeare's book offers a fundamentally different version of the relationship between Shakespeare and Carnivore than the one, fixed in the text.Written in pencil, with a trembling hand, it appears as a sort of a warning message: If you are reading this, there is a probability you may have fallen in with that great monster, Carnivore.If such should be the case, don't, for an instant, trust the miserable sonofabitch.I know he intends to kill me, but I shall have the last laugh on him.The last laugh is an easy thing for one who knows that, in any case, he is about to die.The inhibitor I carried with me is all but gone by now, and once I have no more of it, the malignancy will continue to eat into my brain.And I am convinced, before the final killing pain sets in, it would be an easier death for this slobbering monster to kill me than it would be to die in pain (Simak 2015).
According to Shakespeare, Carnivore is a true predator ("Killing is not only a way of life for him; it is a passion and religion" (Simak 2015)), a very peculiar creature among his race.Perhaps, even a legendary hero, who wants to become an absolute champion among the great killers.In this case, readers are able to have a look at the "reverse side" of the narrative.From the introductory fragments of Shakespeare's mystified text, we find out that he did not like the planet he lived on, whereas Carnivore's insanity, sentimentality and despair generated in him the feeling of fear: He sits across the table from me as I write and I can see him measuring me, knowing full well, of course, that I am no worthy subject of his ritualistic killing pattern <…>.Someday he will do it, and that will be the day.But I have him beat hands down.I have an ace tucked up my sleeve.He does not know that within me lies a death that has only a short time now to run.I shall be ripe to die before he is ready for the killing (Simak 2015).
So, Simak's Shakespeare is a genius of paradoxical triumph.He lays out the program of his further actions, thus destroying the plot frames that were built up by Carnivore.Shakespeare's irony "that surpasses all others in evidencing a psychology of mutability" (Bloom 1994: p. 48), turns into sarcastic pathos, since "laughter in the face" is regarded by the English writer as a final victory: I shall use him to cut short the final agony which I know must come, and I shall rob him of his final killing since killing done in mercy will not count for him.He shall not count coup upon me (Simak 2015).
Thus, we face a typical reincarnation of Shakespeare's image.Within the genre of fantasy, due to intertextuality, the writer's figure turns into a resonant confocal character.Therefore, it would be expedient to assume that personosphere of a fantasy novel with two constructive fictional narratives (whereby William Shakespeare is its confocal center) also includes the Classic's texts.In this case, they perform the function of a separate narrative within the intertextual dialogue with C. Simak's narratives.Consequently, the novel "Shakespeare's Planet" proves genre metamorphism of science fiction, emphasizing its direct transition to the format of the meta-genre.