Getting Tired of Allusion

Before I start, I'm not entirely sure if I've used the correct word. Allusion may in fact be one of many special cases of the phenomenon that I'm thinking of. What I'm trying to describe is when you come across something in a text that reminds you of another text, perhaps even to the point of stirring a desire to go back and read that other text. This can be explicitly intended by the author, as when shklee quotes/cites/references someone else, or mentions another text or author by name; or it can be more subtle or even unintended, ie. simply using a turn of phrase, trope, or theme that conjures up the other author.

Allusion drives me crazy, especially in recent works. I cannot sit down and read a book without getting two or three pages in and being prompted to go pick up another text and read it. As I begin to collect more books in my personal library, the opportunities for me to go and actually get a physical copy of the work being alluded have become more frequent.

But I won't say that all allusion is bad. I just find it badly done even in works that I otherwise consider quite good. Let's see if I can't outline my beef in this blog post.

First, it bugs me when an author mentions someone as influential or inspirational to them, but doesn't actually quote any example of the inspiring work. They just say "as a student I read a lot of X [X typically being just the author's surname], and it was really inspiring." As a reader, the effect this usually has on me is that I have to go to the computer, look that person up, and add some of their work to my wish list. Or, if I already have some of their work, I put down whatever I'm reading in order to pick up the work and refresh myself on it. Maybe this is a good thing, but it's not a good sign for whoever I was trying to read in the first place, although the chances are that I got there by being referred by yet another work.

When they do mention someone, but include a quote, or an example of what they find inspiring, this usually sates my curiosity, and I'm able to go on reading without getting up to search for some other book. Lately, it's been sufficient for me to search my brain to at least see if I have any examples of the alludee on my bookshelf.

Another problem I have though, is when educated writers use the surname of a thinker as a kind of shorthand for a whole bunch of ideas. Sometimes I have no idea what this means, and I have to watch it whoosh over my head. Other times I've read some of the name in question, but the reference doesn't make sense, or is a different reading of the texts than what I know. Sometimes a different meaning is good, because I like to hear a different perspective on something I've read, even if I disagree with it. When I read opinions with which I disagree, this tends to strengthen my original opinion.

I would prefer though, if the writer would just address the specific idea or theme. I realize that this might be too much to ask, since you can break down almost any issue or idea into constituent parts, ad infinitum. At some point, short words have to be able to stand for complex ideas.

And now, to undermine myself, as is my style, I guess this kind of allusion might also be called intertextuality, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe books should be read this way; read straight through, only until a reference to something more interesting comes up. Why should texts be self-contained?