Allusion

Created: November 5, 2020 9:58 AM
Forest status: #soil
Last Edited: 2022-12-31
Topics: Literary devices

Allusion is basically a reference to something else. It’s when a writer mentions some other work, or refers to an earlier part of the current work. In literature, it’s frequently used to reference cultural works (e.g. by alluding to a Bible story or Greek myth).

Literary A-Z

Allusion is a reference to something else, normally beyond the borders of the text in which it appears. It's a bit like a literary echo - a reference to some person, place, event or thing meant to evoke some of its associations and deeper meanings. Let's take a look at how it's used...

The further back we go, the harder it is to spot and draw meaning. So if we look at Homer's Iliad or Odyssey, for example, we might be able to see allusions to the oral tradition of epic poetry where it begins "Sing, O Muse", to give the sense that these stories already have some grand heritage, being passed down the ages - or that they are in some way divinely inspired.

But there are also bound to be nuances of interpretation in some of the cultural practices, such as the use of the oracles or the funeral rites, that we just don't get because we don't really understand the context. And that's the important bit to understand about allusion - it works best where the context is clearest.

For example, we have a lot more context to draw on by the time we come across allusion in Shakespeare. It's easier to spot and understand Romeo in R+J describing the unobtainable Rosaline (the lass he liked before Juliet) as "Diana", the chaste goddess of hunting, because we know who Diana is. It also nicely sets up Juliet as the contrasting Venus, goddess of love.

Shakespeare used these well-known characters to say something about the roles of his own characters. Now though, Juliet is probably more well-known than Roman gods so it's more likely that a modern audience would recognise allusions to R+J before Diana and Venus - because the audience has to get the reference for the allusion to be effective.

McCarthy's The Road, for example, contains biblical allusions that its culturally Christian American audience would recognise: the symbolism of fire, the father-son dyad, even the setting of a 'fallen' world as a consequence of man's sin - these all echo things the audience would easily understand.

Allusions like this work by connecting the text with themes and ideas the reader already knows. Never Let Me Go by Ishiguro, for example, works better if we spot the allusions to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - giving us themes of creation, identity or the morality of scientific advancement to help organise our thinking.

It's a bit like following a well worn path through the wood - it makes travel easier and so we have more time to take in our surroundings along the way - because the path is already there. It helps us think more deeply and confidently about the text because it shows us where to tread.

The thing is, it still has to be subtle. Allusion can help a text, but over-reliance can lead to cliché. It's a support, not a foundation; the text still has to be its own story.

And it can also get confusing if a writer tries to cram in too many allusions, especially if they are obvious. It can easily end up as clutter or, even worse, as something cumbersome that holds back the story. The story is the story is the story, every time. It can't be something it is not.

But when it's done well, it's good. It brings out meanings that the reader feels they are discovering themselves rather than being forced down their throats. I often say that's the mark of a good story: for it to feel like we are uncovering it ourselves. Discovery, not description.

What do you think?