Talk:Allusion

Examples:

1. Utopian discornicopia
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

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 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 7162.188.31 and think the "18 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)