Summary The text is about framing the cultural paradigm of the idea of Croatness in literature and culture as an intertwining of Middle European, Mediterranean, and Oriental „cultural paradigms“. Texts by Ivo Andrić, Miroslav Krleža and Vladimir Nazor are studied because in the context of utterenig the „difference“ they are consideret to be important authors within the national corpus. In this light, the contribution of works of Andrić and Krleža has already been studied whereas the works of Nazor have not been studied to the same extent. However, in relation to the narrative source of Croatian storytelling discourse, they provide the possibility of defining the position towards Others who are clearly visible at the surface level of reading and not dependently interlaced with Us (by various inherent forms), as in the works of Krleža and Andrić. Nazor“s allegorical (re)presentation of reality and its functional reading, i.e. appropriation within the community (in Boškarina and even more in Veli Jože), is modally different from Krleža“s ironic imposition in relation to Middle Europe (simultaneously and ironically affirmed and grotesquely deconstructed) and from Andrić“s constructs of an Oriental (and Croatian) Bosnia where different Others live, meaning those who need no be read according to multilayered ideologies (and stereotypical ideological, culturological and mythological models impregnated into different times and reading spaces). Ideological saturation is principally seen as a „state of affairs“ present before the reading (and writing) of the literary texts discussed here (i.e. in horizons of expectations saturated with ideologemes) and as the politics (plural) of textuality as an external frame to literary (re)presentation. At the level of the imaginary geography of intertwining, they act as the relevant factors of discursive inclusion, to be read as something determined and given at the moment of their formation but also as active in the process of „reinventing“ the facts (the naturalization of texts, narratives and (hi)stories) and then in the imposition (appropriation) of different discursive reading paradigms of the texts from today“s perspective (one saturated with different politics/poetics, with different connotations and with new horizons of expectations). The horizon is seen as saturated with the dispersion of the hegemonical interpretative community. It is argued that the interpretative community is substantially influenced by not only political but also media factors. All this is referred to in the interpretation of literary texts and the authors“ intentions.