>DUDE LITERARY ALLUSIONS LMAO when will this meme be over?

>buy a book
>has words in it
dropped. great books are not great because they have words, but because they are great. that's why my favorite book was by .

>>9609054
"What is intertextuality?"
-t. pleb

>>9609054

I think it is just for fun, and it's supposed to create a mood but people are so under-read on classics that it seems pretentious. Like, in music somebody might quote another popular melody or lyric for effect, or in other forms of popular culture you might get allusions meant to work as a practical device to invoke some sort of idea or emotional resonance.

But pop culture is so accessible that these allusions might seem pretty simple. In lit they aren't so simple because nobody has read the Bible all the way through, or they never read Shakespeare, or whatever. But people get that The Dark Tower series has some significance as further establishing a Stephen King universe because they've read other Stephen King novels and get the references, which they then think is more entertaining (or maybe they hate it and wish Stephen King would just leave Pennywise to IT instead of being like "WOAH, interdimensional eldritch spider demon is in this book too!")

>>9609082
So you read a book because of its many literary allusions? Do you also write a book because you want to throw in it many literary allusions that you believe will earn you a great critical acclaim? Lol.

>>9609054
Why describe entire events, themes, or ideas over the course of paragraphs, or even chapters, when you can condense the thought into an allusion?
I personally don't use them often, but I will when it is very useful to the piece or the structure/length of the piece.

>>9609103
Allusions give the work context and meaning. If you can't see art as being a response to art, whether that be genre, the times, etc. you are a legit pleb who shouldn't read literature.

Do you read just for words? Anyone who believes that a book should be sheer originality, which is not interacting with other art or artists is a pleb.

Even Fahrenheit 451 is a big allusion and reflection on literature.

>>9609114
Of course, man. What I am implying is that literary allusions should be motivated, should have a function. If you throw them in your book just for the sake of it they're not going to make you look smarter. I think this is the problem with many wannabe pomo authors, who are young and maybe well-read but they have truly nothing to say, so they just season their novels with random references, leaving the substance at zero.

>>9609121
Maybe try to stop implying like an arrogant loudmouth and read what I've just said above. I'm well aware art is always a response to art. And I don't think books shouldn't have allusions, I just think those allusions shouldn't be ends in themselves or random "fillers" to lenghten the book.

File: 1464309693959.jpg (39KB, 323x267px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 323x267px

>>9609054

>books

>inherent value

nice.

>>9609089
Pretty much this

>>9609054
>great books are great because they are great.
Holy... I want more

>>9609197
t. I don't know what's rethoric

t. I don't know what a logical argument is

>>9609054
Are great books great because /lit/ loves them? Or does /lit/ love them because they are great?

>>9609054
usually they are pretentious but at their best they are a way to create a relatively complex analogy without being too prolix.

>>9609162
Not to be an ass, but I think larding a book with allusive 'filler' wd be an almost impossible task.
Allusions come to mind while writing but most writers I'd guess dismiss far more than they keep. It's just one figure among many. As another instance I don't think most writers consciously think about loading up their texts with synechdoches or metaphors before beginning. It just doesn't or very rarely happens!
If the allusions are clumsy the writing as a whole is going to be regrettable, however.

>>9609054
Literary allusions are okay if done for a reason. If you reference something you can help a reader better understand what the novel is about, what a character is like, etc. because the reader will associate the imagery and themes of what you referenced to what he/she is reading. If you want a really obvious and hamfisted example, referencing Cain and Abel in a book where two brothers are the main characters makes sense. Referencing the Bible in a book that deals with maintaining faith or avoiding temptation also makes sense.

It can also give the reader an idea of what the times or the setting is like. If a book is set in the 90s, then it would make sense if a teenager living in America referenced Radiohead. It's also a natural part of our lives, so it makes sense that they are represented in books. It wouldn't come off as a shock if an English teacher was prattling on about Shakespeare, or a physicist makes a remark about Einstein. People in real life talk about books, after all.

Lastly, authors (and just artists in general) tend to put a piece of themselves in their books. They write about their passions, what influenced or inspired them, what they despise, etc because this adds a bit of humanity to their novel. An author might reference someone's work simply out of respect or to pay homage to them.

It all just depends on execution and context, like with everything else.

>>9609103
oui, bien sur

>>9609054
You forgot to preemptively state how your frustration has nothing at all to do with you not getting the references.

>>9609089

This. Unless its American po-mo garbage that references shit for the sake of it, its most likely that the author is trying to build on ideas put forward in previous works. Its like academics. You have a point of research, and you're building on the previous body that other before you created.