Do writers really make references just to make them?
Do writers really make references just to make them?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Name one reference for the sake of the reference itsekf
the title
It's not a reference. It's a pseudoreference, the book in question is full of them.
is not about returning to Ittaca?
Cuck O’Mcisraelitestein’s house is no where near Ithaca, either in Greece or the one in New York
It's a comparison between Ulysses (Odysseus and Bloom), how an ordinary man's day can be as epic as a long mithological journey. I agree with op that sometimes the reference seems to be for its own sake, but that's not the case with the title.
why do art critics go absolutely wild over works containing references to other works?
It gives them a reason to exist
They don't read.
It makes them feel smart because they get that twitch of dopamine for recognizing something
I heard professor say that there’s a sort of dialogue between the great works of literature and that through including those references other writers are trying to add their own works to that dialogue.
I oftentimes see really strong thematic connections between different works I’ve read so that seemed like a strong explanation to me at least.
Of course an academic would say that. Without such a paradigm they and their "criticism" would be redundant.
>read a sentence
>interpret it on a basic literal level
>find a reference
>analyse (or intuitively understand the reference because you're not a pleb)
>interpret the sentence on a deeper level
>understand a hidden hint because the refered text reveals some meaning for the text at hand
>be not filtered for once
>read next sentence
>???
>profit
do you have to have everything spoonfed to you, guys?
This board worships dostoevsky, so yes, they have to have.
Does Ulysses have reference besides Odysseus I should read before starting?
Having read Hamlet may help in a later chapter.
Not just reading Hamlet, but reading some of the main theories for it. I was confused by what Stephen was talking about in that chapter until I took a class that focused on Hamlet
true. that's the thing with Ulysses, you can handle it with sparknotes and a vague knowledge of Hamlet based on watching Lion King as a kid, OR you can devote a lifetime to figure out what was going through Joyce's mind and society in the 1920s
>1920s
The book takes place in 1904 though, no?
I meant to say Joyce takes a lot from the discourse of his day. he meanders through questions of Ancient philosophy, medievil stuff, and yes, that one day he "got close" to his wife.
references can be funny, references can be homages and tributes to writers you respect, references can be clues to deeper meanings, references can even be part of a stylistic choice. References in and of themselves are pretty empty, but they can work with a story to imbue it with deeper meaning.
I make references all the time and I'm not even a writer. It's a great way of filtering people irl: if the people get the references I make I know they're legit and on my wavelength, if not I know they're not worth my time talking to and can safely be treated as NPCs from now on, and if they get annoyed at me making constant literary and historical references to shit they have no idea about, well it's always my pleasure to annoy the hoi polloi
Give me an example of a reference you might make and the sort of reaction it provokes.