Talk:Allusion

Removal of article

In terms of English language rhetoric, an allusion is the implicit referencing of a related object or circumstance which has occurred/existed in an external context. An allusion is understandable only to those with prior knowledge of the reference in question (which the writer assumes to be so). Allusions are structurally related to idioms. Note: An illusion is a different part of speech that should not be confused with an allusion.

Examples:

1. Utopian discord
2. A Pearl Harbor sneak-attack
3. All roads lead to Rome (often an idiom)
4. A modern example in popular culture was cited recently in The Matrix Reloaded, wherein Morpheus states, "I have dreamed a dream, but now that dream is gone from me (sic)", which alludes to a quote by King Nebuchadnezzar from Daniel 2:3 of the Old Testament. This is known as a religious allusion.

---

Above text removed -- belongs on Wiktionary. -戴&#30505sv 21:37, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

This is more than a definition. The user, who is brand new by the way, has gone to the trouble of expanding on what could have been a simple dictionary definition. Even if it was a dictionary page, the page is not normally blanked as other pages are likely to be linked to it. If you want to delete the page and move the contents to Wiktionary, and fix the links, please do so, but I feel blanking is unhelpful. Obscure links such as WINAD do not help new users either. Real words explaining what they did wrong would be more user-friendly. Angela

Wrong Trousers

I removed the following:-

• In Nick Park's Animation The Wrong Trousers (1993) Wallace says "All's Well That Ends Well" which may allude to Shakespeare's problem play "All's Well That Ends Well".

for two reasons:

There were a lot of references to "The Wrong Trousers" all over WP which seemed to have been posted by the same user to whip up interest in a book he is trying to publish about this film and

In Welcome to Collinwood George Clooney's character says to Sam Rockwell's, "You're an idiot". Is this an allusion to Dostoevsky? I think not. Paul Tracy_|\talk 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be still there. Anyway, I support this removal. If it is a reference, it isn't a terribly interesting one, as there is no metaphorical meaning apparent. Anyway, I think it's rather more likely to be just used as a well worn phrase, and an allusion to problem plays would contradict the neat ending of TWT. I have been following User:PaulRichmond's exploits, sometimes as User:62.242.166.114, and removing some of his various edits. This "reference" seem to be at least fairly coherent, although I notice on this article you removed a lot more of his assertions. Silverfish 21:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I lost track of my tabs there and spent some time justifying a removal I hadn't done! Paul Tracy_|\talk

Deletions

I've deleted explications of two metaphors that weren't allusive. An allusion to "let the cat out of the bag" would refer somehow to "the familiar feline item" or something. --Wetman 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested expansion

In all my months on WP I have yet to make any serious edits... I thought I would try to find some books on the subject and try improving this article.

This is a basic suggestion for how to structure an expansion of this article. Feel free to change it..

• Introduction (commonly-accepted definition of allusion and how it differs from similar terms)
• Usage (how/why allusion is used by writers, poets, or in everyday speech)

Etymology

Historical usage (early usage of the word)

Modern usage (how it has changed in meaning, if at all)

• Common categorizations of allusion (end each section with a brief and diverse list of examples)

Literary/Poetic (e.g. Allusions to/by Shakespeare)

Religious/Mythological (Christianity, Islam, Greek mythology)

Nontextual (allusion to art, music, etc)

Historical (well-known historical or current events)

Other (more obscure categories, such as alluding to another poet's poetic form)

KingTT 17:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Types" vs. "Examples"

I'm changing "Types of Allusions" to "Examples of Allusions".

These aren't really types or categories, just...examples.

Th900bbepr 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of examples?

I can't help but wonder at the notability here of entries on "Cassandra", "15 Minutes of Fame" etc.? And moreso, I can't figure out what the purpose here is - is the intention to eventually have an unabridged list of the sources of all allusions ever made in modern speech (that's a daunting thought!)? , or to just hodgepodge together random bits of info? I would argue for the removal of these items - or at the absolute very least, if it's felt that such examples are necessary to explain what an allusion is (I'm skeptical) just group the examples together (instead of giving each of them their own paragraph and heading) and let the wikilinks to their articles do the work. any thoughts? Warchef (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the removal of such sections- there is no reason for "Catch-22" and "15 Minutes of Fame" to have any notable presence here, let alone their own sub-headings. Also, the way they're inserted into the article feels random amd throws off the flow of the entry, as there is no text before or after these sections that explain their existence.--71.62.188.31 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with 71.62.188.31 and think the "15 minutes", "Catch-22", and "TS Eliot/James Joyce" sections should be removed. Is everyone OK with that? 68.82.187.82 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whether we want to keep the references to "Catch-22" and "15 Minutes of Fame" depends upon the audience that this article is for. Many with only slight knowledge of American culture and literature could benefit from the references. I don't think members of the Professional Organization of English Majors would be reading this to expand their understanding of Poetry. They would be too busy asking, "Do you want fries with that?"
• I edited out "mediacing" as jargon, but it may have been a unique occurance. A search for the term turned up the Allusion article.
• One does not generally edit a quote to eliminate typos, but with "thing thing thing" included in the quote from Abrams, I doubt that was the published wording. I will see what I can do about ascertaining the correct wording.--Fartherred (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I took the wording that persisted in old versions. It is my best guess at the correct quote.--Fartherred (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

this page worse than useless

This is how the page begins:

An allusion is a swaqq term to, or representation of, a place, event, literary work, myth, or work of art, either directly or by implication. M.H. Abrams defined allusion as "a brief reference, explicit or indirect, to a person, place or event, or to another literary work or passage".[1] It is left to the reader or hearer to make the connection (Fowler); an overt allusion is a misnomer for what is simply a reference.

What the hell is a swaqq!?? Is this some kind of vandalism? It’s always embarrassing when someone tries to write on English grammar and usage, and then makes blunders in those areas, especially when they occur in the first sentence (actually in the first line of the first sentence). There may be difficult themes and subjects in English, but the topic of allusions is not one of them; their function is simple to describe. So I was disappointed to see the obscure and long-winded nature of these musings, couched in sub-standard English at that. And, for that matter, the term “overt allusion” is most definitely NOT a “misnomer for what is simply a reference”. There has been a fair amount of discussion here on this page, so I’m surprised nobody has picked up the glaring deficiencies therein. I will have a crack at it myself if no one else wants to. A definition culled from any small dictionary would be far more preferable to this load of old cobblers, which would only confuse students looking for a simple answer to a simple question. Myles325a (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The degraded text has been repaired. This article needs semi-protection and adult supervision.--Wetman (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OP back. Thanks, Wetman. I've made a change but there is still room for a lot more improvement. It is not accepted practice to have those examples under sub headings in their own right, and there should be more of them, from a wider range. I looked at your User Page, so I am a bit surprised that you make no mention of the lack of classical allusions in the article. Not all allusions are confined to New York in the 70s. A Parthian shot would be good. Myles325a (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

First Sentence

In my opinion, the first sentence of an article is the most vital one. The current first sentence of the article is complex, and people could be drawn in to the Wikipedia article more if it was simplified. The current sentence is: "Allusion is a figure of speech, in which one refers covertly or indirectly to an object or circumstance that has occurred or existed in an external context." Confusing, no? 68.228.111.2 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the last post was me, I forgot to log in. Greatpopcorn (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

etymology

wikipedia says:

• The origin of allusion is in the Latin verb ludere, lusus est "to play with, jest."

britannica says:

• The word allusion comes from the late Latin allusio meaning “a play on words” or “game” and is a derivative of the Latin word alludere, meaning “to play around” or “to refer to mockingly.” (direct fair use quotation from [1])

Can somebody with a knowledge of Latin, and a copy of the OED, please figure out what our version should really say? Please do NOT just delete the origin-sentence from mainspace; though I understand 'wikipedia is wp:not a dictionary', if britannica covers the word-origin in their article on this exact topic, then it behooves us to consider whether we also ought cover such factoid, rather than knee-jerk delete as Out Of Scope. (Or if I'm just wrong, feel free to knee-jerk delete.  :-)     Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

lede , again

Also, have updated the first couple of sentences, which I see were discussed a couple of places above this talkpage section. Currently mainspace now says:

• Allusion is a figure of speech, in which one refers covertly or indirectly to an object or circumstance from an external context.
• It is left to the audience to make the connection;
• where the connection is directly and explicitly stated (as opposed to indirectly implied) by the author, an allusion is instead usually termed a reference.

You can see further up the talkpage, we used to claim "overt allusion" is a misnomer, for instance. The version I modified was less-assertive, but still seemed incorrect (talked about being "in depth" which bit I removed). Also potentially helpful, found when I was looking up allusion... http://www.britannica.com/list/10-frequently-confused-literary-terms ... note the mention of "literary and pop culture references" under the Connotation subsection. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)