/lit/ - Literature

Things only have meaning in relation to other things, therefore Meaning = Context and vice versa. Allusions and references build layers of meaning by contextualising the piece.

>>5165484
Right but why really do this?

depending on the individual reader, they might effect more emotion than the author can accout for.

also, depending on how 'skill-less' your work is, a way to make it more 'sophisticated' is to imbue it with bs that acknowledges how much you've read

>>5165487
I just told you.

>>5165487
Why not? What do you dislike about it?

>>5165477
To be clever. To artfully suggest something. To add depth and meaning to your writing.

>>5165484

This is true.

>>5165492

As is this.

Pynchon's divisive, as are those who follow in his wake. To some, the allusions will provide greater insights, reflections, and lighter moments of humor. To others, they will appear superfluous and gratuitous. Really, it depends on the allusions and what they personally mean to you.

I like Pynchon, personally. But I do think he's a show off. Which is totally fine.

>>5165526
>Pynchon
I've never had the time to read any of his stuff.

Given my time sched. I like Wodehouse short stories before bed

But the idea of being a show off makes me wonder: in what sense?
Sentence construction in meter with with tons of alliteration—I sure hopes it's not obtruse vocabulary.

Having learned Latin at a very young age, I've been more drawn to using derivative words, which turn out to be obsolete or archaic—though they make sense to me. However, the hard hitting point of sentence (not necessarily as simple as Hemmingway) I have found should be germanic in origin. There's just something that hits more in the giut, be it some bs PIE understanding imbedded in westerners, or familiarity (the latter of which I tend to doubt).

>>5165477
To be the Seth McFarlane of literature.

Allusions are for lazy writers. If you can't say it in your own words, you can't write.

>>5165665


but those arnt your words either

>>5165665
>If you can't say it in your own words, you can't write.
Holy shit
HEY EVERYONE! WE GOT THE GUY WHO INVENTED THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE OVER HERE!

The Life You Save May Be Your Own would only be a fucked up story about a one armed guy who swindles a widow and her retard daughter if you had no knowledge of Jesus.

>>5165678
there is a point of satisfaction in not repeating oneself.

thesauri help with this

>>5165477
I've actually been wondering this for a while. I also wonder why it's "sophisticated" to reference only books like Moby Dick and Paradise Lost (works that have been assigned literary merit over time) when there are other books with literary merit that never get referenced (i.e. A Tale of Two Cities, any book published after 1960)

I'm also scared that we will get into a cycle with allusions with books like Blood Meridian and Ulysses, which allude to Moby Dick and the Odyssey, that people will fail to reference modern books since these books already align with long ago books and they will just allude to the "originals" as well, further isolating those books into an immortal position, while dismissing the new piece. Sure it's "interesting" (if that means anything) to reference these works, but what's the point really? Doesn't it just forgo an original story? Or does the writer blatently showing off his/her inspirations somehow make the piece more radical/revolutionary/better?

>>5165721
>using a thesaurus
>ever
I can't think of worse advice.

>>5166491
Explain yourself.

>>5166608
People who can't write for beans use a Thesaurus.

>>5166474
Perhaps you're a victim of your own accusation, and you only recognize the famous allusions and not the more obscure ones.

The other ones are there, read some decent criticisms. You just need to read more.

>>5166800
fuck

>>5166800
>You just need to read more.
I shouldn't need to read a book to understand the book I just read. If the author can't speak for himself, he can't write.

>>5166491
It's for remembering 'that word', when the tip of the tongue haunts you. Otherwise ya, totally

>>5166833
People are influenced by other authors. Keats' has an ode to a particular translation of the Odyssey.

It's a nod of respect sometimes. Other times (Joyce) it's a competition. It's a means of repurposing. Allusions can be used as a metaphor. Sometimes authors want to examine and judge what they're alluding to within a work of fiction. Sometimes, one particular line that someone else wrote is far more eloquent and profound than what you were going to write in that particular instance. The list goes on.

A work should always be able to stand on its own, regardless of its allusions. The allusions (among many other features of literature) give it new and potentially everlasting life. You have to search for them. They take you away from the work, teach you something else, and then you can return with fresh eyes.

Thinking you'll ever fully understand a book is a mistake. And, if you only read what's contemporary, you run the risk of thinking everything is new.

>>5166833
Spoken like a true pleb.

I'm not even a canon faggot and I can see the folly of your ways. All art is contextual, in fact art is nothing *but* aestheticized context. Think of any art you've enjoyed in your life and there are influences that you need to understand to appreciate it. You can't even enjoy the most braindead, commercialized fiction without understanding context, even if the context happens to just be some pop culture bullshit that everybody knows.

For example, Michael Bay's terribad Transformers series. Without being based on a popular cartoon it's just shit movies about giant robots and Bay doesn't even bother making movies unless he can capitalize on some already popular franchise or meme.

>>5166901
>Without being based on a popular cartoon it's just shit movies about giant robots
That's exactly my point; they're a cheap cash-in on an existing franchise and by your own admission, they're terribad.

>>5166862

>>5166915
>quick cash in
>Ulysses

>>5166927
Quit moving the goalposts moron, I was talking about Transformers.

>>5166915
I don't understand your point. You seem to be implying that writing should be standalone, which is virtually impossible because language is itself contextual.

If you wrote a pleb tier book about THIS SUMMER, ONE MAN MUST SAVE HIS FAMILY FROM TERRORISTS for airport stalls today, in 500+ years people would need an education or at least interest in 21st century literature to even know what the fuck you're talking about, because your book would be full of obsolete references.

>>5166939
k, here ya go mate. read this.

>>5166953

>>5165487
...I see.
You don't understand the point because you do not hold the knowledge or intelligence to understand any of them that you come across...

To allude to or reference something idiot

>>5166940
>If you wrote a pleb tier book about THIS SUMMER, ONE MAN MUST SAVE HIS FAMILY FROM TERRORISTS for airport stalls today, in 500+ years people would need an education or at least interest in 21st century literature to even know what the fuck you're talking about

If you wrote a pleb-tier book, it's doubtful people in 500+ would even want to read it. I don't really see what point you're trying to make here. Relying on external context is exactly what makes it pleb-tier in the first place.

The reason why some of you will never be writers is because you're too caught up on literary devices/techniques.

Why the fuck would you EVER think it's bad to use allusions?

>>5166996
Then you must have some weird views about what constitutes pleb tier, considering that canons are entirely composed of books that are the most contextually relevant of their kinds.

>>5166629
Wrong. The thesaurus is a valuable tool when used properly.

Initially, when attempting to accurately depict a scene, a writer may possess only a faint idea of the word they're looking for. They might have a word that is close to what they need, but this similar word is imperfect; it lacks a specific, nuanced shade of meaning, or perhaps it is rhythmically dull or ill-fitting. They are aware however—somehow through fog of memory—that a more precise word exists: an exact word that conveys all the proper vibrations and niceties for the sensation they're trying to invoke.

Enter the thesaurus: an imperfect tool for exhuming exact words through an inelegant spider web of connections.

Words are tools. Considering this, a compendium that exists solely to aid the writer in finding the proper tool for the job is extremely valuable. It is good practice to always find these "perfect" words. By mere dint of trying to acutely pinpoint what one is trying to say: invariably a better writer is made. It forces the writer to continually ask himself the question: "what am I trying to communicate?"—and it's this level of scrutiny that pays dividends. Habitual use of a thesaurus engenders this behavior.

I concede however, that using a thesaurus because you need new ways to say "hypocritical" over and over again is an admittedly thickheaded use of the tool, leading to writing that is cluttered and stuffy at best, and thoroughly pretentious at worst.

>>5167046
>using an actual thesaurus
>not just shift+f7 in any modern word processor

who does this

>>5166629
>>5166491
Wrong. The thesaurus is a valuable tool when used properly.

Initially, when attempting to accurately depict a scene, a writer may possess only a faint idea of the word they're looking for. They might have a word that is close to what they need, but this similar word is imperfect; it lacks a specific, nuanced shade of meaning, or perhaps it is rhythmically dull or ill-fitting. They are aware however—somehow through fog of memory—that a more precise word exists: an exact word that conveys all the proper vibrations and niceties for the sensation they're trying to invoke.

Enter the thesaurus: an imperfect tool for exhuming exact words through an inelegant spider web of connections.

Words are tools. Considering this, a compendium that exists solely to aid the writer in finding the proper tool for the job is extremely valuable. It is good practice to always find these "perfect" words. By mere dint of trying to acutely pinpoint what one is trying to say: a better writer is invariably made. It forces the writer to continually ask himself the question: "what am I trying to communicate?"—and it's this level of scrutiny that pays dividends. Habitual use of a thesaurus engenders this behavior.

I concede however, that using a thesaurus because you need new ways to say "hypocritical" over and over again is an admittedly thickheaded use of the tool, leading to writing that is cluttered and stuffy at best, and thoroughly pretentious at worst.

>>5167059

This.

A Thesaurus used to lengthen a work is being put to wrong use.

A Thesaurus used to make specific the necessary details within a work is being put to good use.

>>5166491
>>5166629
Wrong. The thesaurus is a valuable tool when used properly.

Initially, when attempting to accurately depict a scene, a writer may possess only a faint idea of the word he's looking for. He may have a word that is close to what he needs, but this similar word is imperfect; it lacks a specific, nuanced shade of meaning, or perhaps it is rhythmically dull or ill-fitting. He is aware however—somehow through fog of memory—that a more precise word exists: an exact word that conveys all the proper vibrations and niceties for the sensation he's trying to invoke.

Enter the thesaurus: an imperfect tool for exhuming exact words through an inelegant spider web of connections.

Words are tools. Considering this, a compendium that exists solely to aid the writer in finding the proper tool for the job is extremely valuable. It is good practice to always find these "perfect" words. By mere dint of trying to acutely pinpoint what one is trying to say: a better writer is invariably made. It forces the writer to continually ask himself the question: "what am I trying to communicate?"—and it's this level of scrutiny that pays dividends. Habitual use of a thesaurus engenders this behavior.

I concede however, that using a thesaurus because you need new ways to say "hypocritical" over and over again is an admittedly thickheaded use of the tool, leading to writing that is cluttered and stuffy at best, and thoroughly pretentious at worst.

Works of art don't exist in a vacuum. Having a story with no allusions would be just as weird as a story slathered in them. How often do films or books come up in your conversations with your friends, and why?

A good allusion will help the reader understand a character or situation better.

>>5167072
You left out

A Thesaurus used to vary the language of a work without creating contradictory specific details or using rare to the point of confusing word choices is being put to good use

>>5167108
Exactly. Allusions are an excellent shorthand way of informing characters and situations, and can quickly highlight contrasting themes within the piece.

For example. the constant allusions to Shakespeare and his works within the world of Brave New World economically draws a stark and vivid contrast. Allusions are like images, when well chosen, they're quite pithy.

>>5167164
Allusions are also a way of giving credit to inspirations and influences.

>>5167190

Allusions are cultural shorthand

>Man that guy was put out there as some kind of sacrifice for us all and put through terrible, terrible pain that could have been spread to all of us, but was instead focused on only him

Sounds a lot worse than

>Man that guy was crucified

>>5167195

>Dude those guys got completely and utterly destroyed. They were so thoroughly and horribly annihilated that their descendants will be forced remember this haunting violation for the rest of recorded time.

>Dude it was a holocaust.

>>5167237

Exactly

>>5165477

what is the point in symbols on a page?

>>5165665
>Allusions are for lazy writers. If you can't say it in your own words, you can't write.

>uses an allusion to make his point

>>5168621

Did he ever claim he wasn't a lazy writer?

>>5168665
Seth McFarlane makes a lot of outside references in his T.V. shows.

The first anon was saying that if you use a lot of allusions in your writing you are basically a literary Seth McFarlane. Meaning, you cut away from the topic at hand to refer to some outdated joke or other work, etc.

The second anon called the first one out for alluding, in a sense anyway, to McFarlane while knocking on using allusions in one's writing.

Allusion is a valid literary technique as long as you know what you're doing.
For a literature board most anons here are retarded about literature.

>>5167078
Holy shit man, learn to be concise. >>5166846 just said pretty much exactly what you did but in about 10 words. Nobody thinks you're smart because you can write a fuckong dissertation on the utility of a thesaurus.

>>5168697

If you actually think >>5166846 was as thorough as >>5167078, you're an idiot.

Why not just read the sparknotes of King Lear and say that was better than the actual play?

>>5168743
butthurt your post is shitty and wordy

>>5167078
Dude get over yourself lol

>>5168687
>The first anon was saying that if you use a lot of allusions in your writing you are basically a literary Seth McFarlane.
I don't see anything wrong with that anyways.

>>5168697
I felt like writing a mini-dissertation advocating the use of a thesaurus.

You hold a belief, you formulate an argument, and you assert. I can be concise, but I felt like expounding.

Nobody gives a shit if you think it's smart or not. Sometimes it's just plain fun to argue. Jesus.

>>5168697
I felt like writing a mini-dissertation advocating the use of a thesaurus.

You hold a belief, you formulate an argument, and you assert. I can be concise, but I felt like expounding.

Nobody gives a shit if you think it's smart or not. Sometimes it's just plain fun to argue. Jesus.

>>5168751
I thought that my image, where I refer to myself as a pedantic faggot, was a sort of cheeky, self-aware humility. Guess it flew over your head.

>>5165721
She is incredibly sexy

>>5168884
mcfarlane is a degenerate

>what's the point in external reading?
>every point should be made through inductive methods!

>>5165477
What does Pynchon read to get his references? (the history and science references more than the pop culture)

Can any non-American ever enjoy Pynchon? I read Gass, Gaddiss, Bolano with no problem but I usually don't really get what's going on in Pynchon's stories (so far I only read V and lot 49).

>>5169605
>i don't enjoy pynchon
>therefore all non-americans don't enjoy pynchon
stop.

>>5169651
>>therefore all non-americans don't enjoy pynchon

I've never asserted such statement, rather I'm just posing a question.

Nobody actually enjoys Pynchon
#trufax

>>5169666
why ask then? it's fucking obvious that people outside of the US like pynchon.

>>5169669
Your mother rather likes it.

>>5165677
>let me describe this tree right here
>let me describe this tree right here in a way that references something someone else said that isn't this tree right here