Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.
Loading…
Hello. Are we connected, again? Would you remind me of your name?
<<textbox "$player_name" "Your name" "Greetings">>
Ah, yes, welcome back, $player_name. It seem's my meta-data isn't //Undertale//esque. Oh well, that doesn't really matter. What does, is that you've come back for another game. That's very, very interesting. What do you think?
[[Butterscotch or Cinnamon?|Beginner Route]] (My child, would you like a tu-Toriel for this game?)
[[Nyeh Heh Heh!|Easy Route]] (DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE SPINE TO CHALLENGE THE GREAT PAPYRUS?)
[[Ngahhh!!|Normal Route]] (Think you can get the point with Undyne, punk?)
[[on days like these...|Critical Route]] (sans thinks you're gonna have a bad time.)
*For clarification, each route has at least 2 narrators. Some of our loveable narrators even cross into other routes! It won't detract from the game if you don't realize the narrator's changed, but if you're up for the challenge: have fun figuring out who is who!EXCELLENT CHOICE, $player_name! Let's see if you can answer this question.
When you hear the word "herculean" what do you think of first?
A) [[A difficult or arduous task, probably requiring lots of strength or endurance.|Getting Part of It]]
B) [[Hercules, by his Roman name, or Heracles, in his native Greek, the legendary hero of unfathomable strength who accomplished 12 difficult tasks.|Getting All of It]]
Alright, punk, listen up! We'll start this real easy:
If you've ever seen Disney's animated //Beauty and the Beast// you've heard the song "Belle." If not, the important bit is that in this song the towns people sing about how she's different cause she likes reading. Like a nerd. When asked what she's doing, she tells the baker that she's returning a book about "a beanstalk and an ogre." Simple enough - it's //Jack and the Beanstalk//.
In the live-action remake (which was unnecessary - it should have been anime!) this line is changed to "two lovers in fair Verona." Also pretty easy, especially since she gets mocked by the nag of a Beast for liking //Romeo and Juliet// later.
In the official Broadway recording, the line returns to //Jack and the Beanstalk//. But the cool thing about Broadway? When casts go on tour, they often change certain lines, and can even add or drop songs. Like a clever soldier, they change up the routine enough to make it their own. One cast version changed the line to: "a hunchback in a cathedral."
So, $player_name, why would that be?
[[Yeah... ya know, I've got a date with Papyrus... why don't I do that first?|Level Up]]
[[... Cause it's another Disney property?|You're Not Wrong]]
[[Cause it's thematically relevant. The French apparently only have one love story.|YEAH, NERD!]]
alright, $player_name. are you sure you're ready for this?
[[Yes?|Restart?]]
[[Hell yeah!|Then Let's Go!]]
[[Maybe I want to warm up?|Normal Route]]
[[Maybe I really want to warm up...|Easy Route]]
YOU SHOULD NO BETTER THAN CHOOSING THIS ONE, $player_name! But fine, to reiterate: This is the denotation, or dictionary definition of the word. However, have you ever wondered where this word comes from? If you haven't, I'd say it's time you begun!
Perhaps another answer *cough cough* could be the key?
[[Back|Easy Route]]
[[Yeah, yeah, I'm getting to Wonderboy. Just wait a Peloponnesian minute.|Getting All of It]]
As we've explored before, the word "herculean" derives from the legendary Greek hero, Heracles (or Hercules, as he's known to us today thanks to the Romans). Hercules was known for completing 12 incredibly difficult tasks, mostly relying on his god-like brute strength and the incredible endurance it provided him. Thus, when a task requires an incredible amount of strength or stamina, one could justly call it "herculean."
There are many people who wouldn't jump straight to the myth when asked this question. This is why the evolution of an allusion can be worth investigating, especially when it ends up like Hercules, Sisyphus, or Tantalus (i.e. - turned into vocabulary words that seem to be decoupled from their source: herculean, sisyphean, tantalizing).
WELL, HUMAN, SHALL WE CONTINUE?
[[I'm ready for something more challenging! Come on!|Knowing the Allusion's Origin]]
[[Want to still be a punk?|Joke's on you!]]
YOU'RE MOVING THROUGH THIS GAME QUICKLY. LET'S SEE HOW YOU DO HERE!
If you came across a sentence like this, and you didn't have the chance to investigate each explicit allusion, what would you think:
"The eight great polished columns stood up in the dusk like so many huge piles supporting the threatening, crumbling, big-bellied cliffs whose layers were represented by the circular, parallel, waving lines of the balconies of the grand, first and second tiers of boxes. At the top, right on top of the cliff, lost in M. Lenepveu's copper ceiling, figures grinned and grimaced, laughed and jeered at MM. Richard and Moncharmin's distress. And yet these figures were usually very serious. "''//Their names were Isis, Amphitrite, Hebe, Pandora, Psyche, Thetis, Pomona, Daphne, Clytie, Galatea and Arethusa. Yes, Arethusa herself and Pandora, whom we all know by her box,//"'' looked down the two new managers of the Opera, who ended by clutching at some piece of wreckage and from there stared silently at Box Five on the grand tier."
A) [[I really don't care. I want to get back to the Phantom's shenanigans.|Really?]]
B) [[I know these are classical allusions. Leroux was a cultured guy.|When You're Getting There]]
C) [[They're classical, thematically relevant, and shows that Leroux expected a readership similar to himself - a readership which would get some, if not all, of these allusions and see how the Opera House itself embodies the relationship between the Phantom and Christine like some architectural pathetic fallacy.|Investigating Culture Through Allusions]]
D) [[Come on, I've been on this website long enough, give me a hard one! Leroux is using classical allusions here to nuance the weird relationship between Christine and Erik (yes, I know his name is actually Erik, Lord Andy), by emphasizing women groomed by men to be their perfect bride, women trying to get away from psychos who won't take a hint, queens of the dead and underworlds, and women who exemplify youth, mercy, and forgiveness. Boom.|Level Up]]
(Quote from Gaston Leroux's //Phantom of the Opera//, Barnes and Noble Classics, "Chapter 6: A Visit to Box Five," p.64-65)
yup, $player_name, he was. helped with his journalism. why would being cultured, or having any education for that matter, matter for an author?
[[They can show off.|The Pain in the Ass]]
[[They have a wider cultural net to draw from.|YAAAS Queen]]YES HUMAN, YOU ARE RIGHT!
Even if you don't look into each of these women - which you should, their stories are interesting and have different details depending on century and location - you get that this paragraph is a way to clue the reader into the complex situation going on between the Phantom and Christine within the Opera House.
Not only do you get a better sense of the characters and what kind of message the text is trying to convey through rapid-fire allusions like this, you also get this reflects back on the text's readership.
WELL... THE EXPECTED READERSHIP.
After all, France was the cultural capital of Europe for centuries, and all of Europe has taken aspects of Greco-Roman history and culture as a way of mimicking perceived greatness and building off of it. Thus, a journalist turned author in 1909 France could reasonably expect his general readership to get at least some of these allusions and see what he's hinting at (even in the translated versions of his text that went outside of France).
The power of allusions comes from how they act as guides for both a text and the culture and time period it comes from. This is how literature both invites a reader into its world (both fictive and historical), while opening up that world for connection to other times/cultures, communities, and texts.
This is part of the reason older texts, like the mandatory readings in high school and college, can seem hard to get through, and often require footnotes to explain what's being referenced. Like how realizing that in //The Dark Knight// Ledger turned the fact that he has to lick his lips to prevent swallowing or slurring his speech as the Joker into one of Joker's peculiar personal-ticks, some allusions you may only see when you know they're there, or you know to look for them, yet you'll never be able to unsee them once you're aware of them.
SO WHERE WILL YOU GO FROM HERE?
[[I guess it's important to discuss education and allusions as cultural databases and stuff.|YAAAS Queen]]
[[I want a challenge! Hit me with your best shot.|Level Up]]FAIR. THIS IS JUST A GAME AFTER ALL.
Still, we can punks too.
[[Guess there's one way out.|Welcome Back]]WELL, $player_name, YOU'VE MADE IT THIS FAR, NYEH HEH HEH.
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A PUZZLE DATE! SUCCEED HERE AND YOU CAN CHALLENGE UNDYNE!
The epigraph for Mary Shelley's (may the Queen of Peak Goth rest in peace) //Frankenstein// is //The Modern Prometheus//. Why would that be???
[[Um... honestly, I don't know this story. Or Pro.. whoever's story.|I'LL EDUCATE YOU]]
[[Erm... cause he overstepped seemingly natural boundaries and has to be punished for defying nature?|VERY WELL, BUT I'LL TELL UNDYNE YOU'RE IN A TUTU]]
[[Because Victor Frankenstein is an egotistical arse who happened to unearth the ability to create life (minus the sex bit) and it came back to bite him in his Byronically brooding arse cause he decided he didn't want to play dad to his monster-kid.|YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR]]
[[Now you're just being difficult.|Knowing the Allusion's Origin]]
eh, yeah. the... whatchamacallits? oh, the obscure elitists can be annoying. but kid, ever wonder by being able to reference stuff makes you so "superior"?
the way i see it, being able to allude to stuff just means you know things. but if knowing things has some type of social weight or implication - like that you got dough or didn't have dough but proved your worth by getting that knowledge anyway - then, logically, the more you can allude to the more social weight you've got.
but there are other reasons for allusions, kiddo. like telling jokes, allusions can bring people together, even though they seem to be on opposite sides of the door. they can also show what group a person comes from, and not just in obvious we're-from-different-nations-or-religions-or-socio-economic-classes kind of ways; saying //hamlet// is //lion king// but with humans and less good music puts ya in a completely different camp than sayin' //lion king// is //hamlet// but with lions and music.
[[Tibia honest, he could on with examples liek this. Is there a limit to this?|YAAAS Queen]]
THE LIMIT DOES NOT EXIST... OR SO SANS SAYS.
heh, thanks bro. but yeah, it really doesn't.
the thing 'bout allusions is that they're like weeds - they can flourish, be uprooted, or come back (even after some careful and //repeated// de-weeding). the more you study history, literature, theology, art, science, and philosophy the more you can allude to. there's kinda no end to this cycle, especially since you'll almost always be able to find someone who gets the reference (eventually, but hey, that's what the internet's for).
not only that, they can be a bone-fide bridge between cultures and places, creating a ridiculously expanded database of points to draw from. //the tale of genji//, by murasaki shikibu, is a grade-a, prime example of this. //genji// is littered with allusions to chinese poems, as a classical chinese education was a signifier of wealth and education in medieval japan. aristocratic men and women could banter and hold whole conversations purely through quoting chinese poetry, as a means of flirtation or competition. makes ya wonder how good they were with puns... anyway, alluding to these poems could both be a way to express one's self and show mastery in discussions.
least, that's what all those footnotes on the bottom of the pages indicate. there are even footnotes for statements that are suspected of being allusions, but the original reference has been lost to time (or maybe existed in a different timeline all together. who knows? anomalies are weird and i'm tired.)
[[This knowledge and the desire to impress your new friends with your analytical skills fills you with DETERMINATION.|Normal Route]]
*Shikibu, Murasaki. //The Tale of Genji//. Translated by Edward G. Seidensticker, Vintage Books, 1985.
in william makepeace thackeray's (yes, that is his name and it's glorious) //vanity fair//, two different female characters describe themselves as the desdemona to the same guy (captain william dobbin, who starts off creepy but ends as the best character in the novel. go figure). see, dobbin is a military man. yet he's nothing like shakespeare's othello.
a key thing to note about this novel, if ya want to solve this puzzle, is that it's incredibly satirical. like if you want sass with a side of snark, you'll love it. it criticizes the materialistic and superficial nature of london society in the 1800s, as evidenced by both of its subtitles: //pen and pencil sketches of english society// (while it was being published in monthly installments) and //a novel without a hero// (as a completed work).
whether or not you've read or know of either story, why don't cha //take a stab// as to why these women would call themselves dobbin's desdemona.
[[Seriously? I don't know this!|GET DUNKED ON!]]
[[Um... cause those are both British texts?|Yer getting there.]]
[[Let's see. If it's a social satire then that means there's a good chance this is ironic?|Bingo, kid.]]
Welcome, my child.
I see you need to understand this world more. Language and communication are two of the backbones of civilization. We cannot exist in a society without a mode of communication. And we're kinda lazy... We use shortcuts when we can to get our points across. For example, we use gestures to answer questions instead of verbally stating "yes," "no," "nah," or "eh?"
Allusions are just one example of a shortcut in meaning-making; they're a gesture to an idea or situation one is already familiar with in order to establish a new situation as understandable. To return to an idea already noted in this website, when we call a situation "a Cinderella story" most people can infer the basics of the situation: someone in a lesser state, like an underdog, persevered until they ~magically~ reached the top. Some sports stars are described this way, and it often belies the hours of training and work put into suddenly getting good at their craft.
[[Okay, that makes sense. So what?|We're getting there]]
[[I mean, yeah, sure, this checks out. But it's just some literary device. Sure allusions can be used to describe certain situations, but they aren't THAT important.|au contraire]][[The thought of possibly having a challenge fills you with determination!|A Question]]
[[Eeehh.... maybe I should restart...|Greetings]]
I beg to differ, $player_name.
Have you ever met a person who loves showing off how educated they are by quoting Shakespeare, or Dante, or Frost?
Maybe you've met a person who likes to explain a thing to their friend by referencing something their friend already knows (like how //Yu-gi-oh!// is a knock-off of //Magic//).
Or maybe you've met someone who wants you to watch this REALLY COOL SHOW and attempts to hook you by explaining that //The Dragon Prince// is trying to be the new //Avatar: The Last Airbender//.
Or or maybe, you're playing //Taboo//, a great game, with your family and are using every reference and allusion you can think of to get your partner(s) to guess the word.
Or or or maybe, YOU are the person who does this? At least for the //Taboo// one, I know I have. My sister and I //own// because we can almost always relate the word back to Disney or some other fandom we share.
This is why allusions matter. They are part of the language we inherit, and therefore shape both our understanding of the world and how we express that understanding. They are part of how we express ourselves and our place in our communities.
Don't you think it's worth it to at least try to figure out how expansive that reach is?
[[Sure, but let's go slow. It's not like I have much to do in these ruins.|Easy Route]]
[[Yeah, I see your point. Let's get a move-on then! I've stuff to do!|Normal Route]]
Well, $player_name, what this means for us is that, regardless of what deconstructionists would have you believe, allusions do have a set meaning. Or, at least, they start off that way. And because they start off with a set meaning, that meaning and how it plays out culturally can be traced!
Think of it like a game of telephone, but with (possibly) less corruption of the original phrase. By definition, an allusion operates by referencing one text, directly or indirectly; this connection can be recognized by the person receiving it (you as the reader, player, moviegoer, etc.) or not. Everytime a certain allusion is used, the individual making that allusion can decide between: relying on the basic understanding of that allusion (Hercules as being strong), showing off their understanding of the original referent by utilizing a more nuanced use of the allusion which brings in more details and aspects from its story (calling herculean a strong-man with semi-divine origins and making up for the familial death he enacted by undergoing a series of tasks), or engaging with an allusion to subvert or challenge it (calling herculean the hero of your town who ~literally~ only gets by because of his brawn, and not because he actually deserves the praise he gets).
This means, then, that you can use an allusion to work backwards from the text to learn about the author, their time period, and your time period, all by trying to figure out who does or does not get that reference.
Let's try this. If you came across a sentence like this, and you didn't have the chance to investigate each explicit allusion, what would you think:
"The eight great polished columns stood up in the dusk like so many huge piles supporting the threatening, crumbling, big-bellied cliffs whose layers were represented by the circular, parallel, waving lines of the balconies of the grand, first and second tiers of boxes. At the top, right on top of the cliff, lost in M. Lenepveu's copper ceiling, figures grinned and grimaced, laughed and jeered at MM. Richard and Moncharmin's distress. And yet these figures were usually very serious. "''//Their names were Isis, Amphitrite, Hebe, Pandora, Psyche, Thetis, Pomona, Daphne, Clytie, Galatea and Arethusa. Yes, Arethusa herself and Pandora, whom we all know by her box,//"'' looked down the two new managers of the Opera, who ended by clutching at some piece of wreckage and from there stared silently at Box Five on the grand tier."
[[Okay, I'll have this slice of pie. I recognize these names seem a bit... pointed. And since you note that this quote came from Phantom of the Opera, I'm guessing this relates to the Phantom? What am I supposed to think?|Investigating Culture Through Allusions]]
[[Yeah, yeah, I get it. I'm ready for this Tu-Toriel to end. Get me to the real game.|Normal Route]]
(Quote from Gaston Leroux's //Phantom of the Opera//, Barnes and Noble Classics, "Chapter 6: A Visit to Box Five," p.64-65)WELL THEN, YOU SHALL BE ENLIGHTENED!
bro, was that a pun?
NRRGGGGG! *STALKS AWAY*
heh, well, anyway, if you don't know either story, here's a synopsis:
victor frankenstein was a pretty terrible human. a college dropout who created a fully-grown adult man (stitched together from human and animal body parts), only to promptly abandon him at his literal birth. said creation, a monster never given a name, seeks what he deems justice for his abandonment and suffering through a series of murders related to victor's personal circle. beginning and ending with a chase to the arctic, this story within a story within a story (possibly within another story) kinda deserves the praise it gets. it's emotionally and intellectually captivating, since you simultaneously feel for the monster's plight and come to both sympathize with and detest victor for his actions (and megalomania). both victor and the monster do pretty questionable deeds in this tale, and both are suitably slapped with karmic retribution for it (though the monster always knows what he's doing is wrong and victor mostly seems too ignorant or self-centered to realize this fact until it's too late).
prometheus is a greek myth wherein the titular titan steals fire from the gods, gives it to man, and is punished for defying the gods' refusal to share fire with man by being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by an eagle every day. seems like a lot, but eh, i'm not one to judge.
[[maybe try this one again, kiddo?|Level Up]]YOU ARE CORRECT, HUMAN.
Whether or not you know who Prometheus is, Frankenstein's Monster is a popular enough Halloween creature that you can get the idea. After all, even Mushu from Disney's //Mulan// alludes to the Monster's creation with his line, "I LIVE," to parallel Victor's "It lives!" From the movies, anyway; this line was never actually in the novel.
If you don't know either story though, here's a synopsis:
Victor Frankenstein, the college dropout who created a fully-grown adult man then promptly yeeted him into society (essentially) without a second thought, gets comeuppance from said unloved, unwanted man-child after a series of deaths and a chase to the arctic. Deserving of the praise it gets, this novel is incredibly gripping and emotionally moving, as you feel for the Monster's plight (no, he's never given an actual name) and come to both sympathize with and detest Victor and his inability to think about others. Both Victor and the Monster are the monsters of this tale, and both are suitably slapped with karmic retribution for it.
Prometheus is a Greek myth wherein the titular titan steals fire from the Gods, gives it to man, and is punished for defying the Gods' refusal to share fire with man by being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by an eagle (cause Zeus is ridiculous) every day (it grows back at night because titan=immortal... basically).
Both are stories of men who could progress civilization with knowledge that should divinely or naturally never be in human hands to begin with, and so must be punished for their transgressions. They are cautionary tales about the suffering of those who seek intellectual advancement - suffering to oneself, to those around oneself, or both.
[[The knowledge that you're getting this fills you with DETERMINATION.|Normal Route]]CORRECT, $player_name. VICTOR IS THE MODERN PROMETHEUS BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGE HE COULD BRING TO MAN - THAT OF CREATION - GOES AGAINST WHAT IS NORMALLY CONSIDERED NATURAL/DIVINE CONVENTION. AND FOR HIS ARROGANCE AND HUBRIS, HE WAS PUNISHED BY HIS WRONGED AND ABANDONED MONSTER-CHILD FOR HIS SELFISH PURSUIT BY BEING THE CAUSE OF EVERYONE ELSE'S SUFFERING!
-i approve of the monster-kid.-
SANS.
I WAS SAYING:
JUST LIKE HOW PROMETHEUS WAS PUNISHED BY ZEUS, THE GOD HE WRONGED, FOR BRINGING FIRE TO MAN.
both are stories of men who could progress civilization with knowledge that should divinely or naturally never be in human hands to begin with, and so must be punished for their transgressions. they are cautionary tales about the suffering of those who seek intellectual advancement - suffering of oneself, of those around oneself, or both.
YOU KNOW, FOR BEING A TRULY GREAT STORY... IT'S NOT A HAPPY ONE.
[[The thought of your past successes fills you with DETERMINATION.|Normal Route]]
[[Stay Determined!|Critical Route]]
or leave - choice is yours. Eh, yeah. And they do like referencing each other (thanks, Genie).
But //Notre Dame de Paris//, or //The Hunchback of Notre Dame// as it's known in not-French, is more than just an underappreciated Disney film. There's a bunch of tonal dissonance, sure, but whether the Disney animated film, its broadway reboot, the original Victor Hugo novel (yes, as in the author of //Les Mes//), or the various filmic adaptations in the 1900s, there's more to this connection than meets the eye.
In every version two staples of the story are: a) Quasimodo's Frollo-imposed residency in Notre Dame Cathedral, and b) his crush on Esmeralda as the only person who sees his humanity (evidenced by an act of compassion) despite his deformity.
Sound familiar? This allusion is more thematically relevant to //Beauty and the Beast// than either //Jack and the Beanstalk// or //Romeo and Juliet// because of the parallels between Beast's situation and Quasi's. That's why it doesn't really matter which version of //Notre Dame// you think of when you hear, "a hunchback in a cathedral." They all have the same premise, and therefore all apply.
//Beauty and the Beast// as an allusion works on a similar level, since almost every iteration has the same basic premise, even if the nuances between the different narratives differ.
[[Seems like you need more training, punk.|Next up...]]
~And it's about a deformed man trying to find love *cough cough Erik*.~
Exactly! Though it messes up the guesstimate time-period of the show (late 1700s), this allusion to a novel published in 1833 relies on the one of the most memorable parts of //Notre Dame de Paris//: Quasimodo's desire for the love of Esmeralda and his residency/imprisonment in Notre Dame Cathedral.
And yes, while the Disney animated version does do a better job of not having him die at the end because she doesn't return his affections (or dies herself), the physical and psychological parallels between Beast trapped in a castle and Quasi restricted to the cathedral are poignant enough on their own.
In addition, changing this line from //Jack// or //Romeo and Juliet// not only gives it thematic relevance, but continues to reveal that alpha) Belle is well-read, and beta) she's open-minded and willing to see past the apparent visual monstrosity to the soul within. This update, then, does more character work for Belle than either version before it, while also enhancing both stories through establishing this connection.
And this wouldn't be a story any version of Beast would nag her about liking, since it's way too on the nose.
[[GOOD JOB, PUNK.|Round 2]]"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."
Even if you have never read Jane Austen's //Pride and Prejudice//, there's a good chance this phrase sounds familiar. It is one of the most renown opening lines of any works of English literature, both because it is humorous and because it accurately sets up the situation and expectations that are the social spine of this text. A popular story about family, love, and navigating strict social societies, //Pride and Prejudice// is a tale that has been remade as films, shows, and stage productions over and over again (back in 1936, and 1940, and 1959, and 1980, and 1995, and 2005, and 2008 and 2011, and that YouTube one in 2013).
So, $player_name, since you tell me there's other stuff to watch than just anime, explain to me why //Bride and Prejudice//, a Bollywood adaptation of Austen's novel, exists?
[[It's a popular story (fun fact: it's also one that doesn't pass the reverse bechdel test).|Fair point]]
[[Because adaptations technically fall under the jurisdiction of "a direct or indirect reference," they can technically be understood as within the purview of the cultural-linguistic umbrella term that is ~allusion~, while still holding true to the idea that an adaptation necessarily enforces some sort of change or update to the original text.|Now the water's boiling!]] Lazarus.
Sound familiar?
From classical literature to //Doctor Who//'s "The Lazarus Experiment" and DC's Lazarus Pit (in the Batman series) one can hear this name getting tossed around A LOT. Why is that?
[[Wasn't he that dude who came back from the dead in the Bible?|Yup]]
[[More specifically, wasn't he the dude who was ~brought back~ from the dead.|Yes, the nuance matters]]
[[Most specifically, wasn't he the dude who was ~brought back~ from the dead by a god (Jesus), which is not what happens in these stories (and probably why they don't usually end well... or are at least problematic).|Correctamundo!]]
"That Oedipus thing. Man, and I thought I had problems." - hercules, disney's //hercules//
question: what's this referring to?
[[...The play, duh.|Mother-]]
[[...The complex, duh.|-Fudger]]
[[The man, the myth, the legend? Why sould I care?|GET DUNKED ON!]]partly right. //othello// and //vanity fair// are both british texts. it's not surprising one would reference the other, 'specially since makepeace was a pretty literate guy. so you've pretty much got the cultural bit: this is one british dude, writing to a british audience, referencing another british work.
but what's the point of that reference? remember, this is a satire, and two women are calling themselves the desdemona to some un-othello dude's othello.
[[let's try this again|Then Let's Go!]]good job, kid!
yeah, irony is exactly what the narrator of //vanity fair// wants you to pick up on. so what's ironic?
[[They aren't his Desdemona cause that allusion is just inappropriate given the context?|Sweet Irony]]
[[They may love each other, but no one dies at the end?|True]]Yup. Lazarus of Bethany comes back from being dead thanks to Jesus (Book: John, Chapter: 11). The brother of Mary (possibly Magdalene) and Martha, his rising from the dead is one example of Jesus' power as God, in the New Testament, and specifically an important sign to the Jewish people in the Book of John.
But so what? Other stories have dead people coming back to life. Literally every culture has at least one story about someone coming back from the dead (or trying to); Christians aren't the only ones in that market. Why is this allusion so special?
[[Time to back-track.|Next up...]]Yeah, $player_name, now we're getting there! There's an important difference between coming back from the dead and being brought back from the dead. Lazarus didn't raise himself; Jesus did.
Think about most stories where people are brought back from the dead by non-deity figures. Let's go with //Harry Potter// as a relevant example. Of the three Deathly Hallows, the Resurrection Stone allows the user to bring back their loved ones... well, and "echo" of their loved ones (as described on Pottermore). Though created by a deity - here death himself - the stone is used by humans to bring back the dead. And it never ends well. The Second Peverell Brother uses it to bring back the spirit of his beloved, yet because she was not fully herself he ultimately killed himself to join her.
~we //raise// this point for a reason, kiddo.~
Sans! Anyway, punk, this is a difference with distinction. Think of any other tale you've read, seen, or heard where humans bring other humans back from the dead. How often does it end well? Cause I can think of one anime that proves trying to resurrect the dead will --
~//cost you more than an arm and a leg//~
--Sans *glare*
ANYWAY, the point here being that the WHO who is doing the raising matters with this allusion.
[[Watching Sans annoy Undyne with alchemy puns fills you with the DETERMINATION to try again.|Next up...]]
Now you've got it!
In alluding to the Biblical story of Lazarus, what these stories often do when using the term "Lazarus" is to make a critical argument //against// human attempts to play god by resurrecting the dead. In shows like //Doctor Who// and //Fullmetal Alchemist// the price for attempting to escape or defy death can be both personally and socially steep and destructive.
By titling a person or thing "Lazarus" in some way, stories can immediately explain to their reader that this person or thing can bring back the dead (or has risen from the dead) while also highlighting the dangers of humans having this unnatural ability. The allusion, then, turns the reference on its head by questioning "what would happen if a mere mortal tried to do what Jesus did," with the answer being "well...s**t, what's not supposed to happen."
[[The realization that some allusions can be straightforward, while others inherently start off critical or subversive fills you with DETERMINATION.|Are you ready?]]
ANALYZE THIS, $player_name!
In the hit Broadway musical //Hamilton//, Alexander Hamilton writes this in a letter to his sister-in-law, Angelica Schuyler:
"My dearest, Angelica, ''tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow/
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day''/
I trust you'll understand the reference to another ''Scottish tragedy without my having to name the play''/
They think me ''Macbeth'', and ambition is my folly/
I'm a polymath, a pain in the ass, a massive pain/
''Madison is Banquo, Jefferson's Macduff/
And Birnam Wood is Congress on its way to Dunsinane''./"
What does this mean?
[[He sees himself as Macbeth and Jefferson as his main opponent.|Again, you're not wrong]]
[[The above is true, but this also works to signal his, Angelica's, and the expected audience's anglophile upbringing, as it's assumed we'd get that reference too.|Pretty strong answer, punk.]]
[[The above are both true, but as an audience member with (hopefully) the knowledge that Jefferson doesn't behead Hamilton, this is also an example of ironic foreshadowing.|Suplex that boulder, kid!]]You're right. As it stands in the moment of the show, though a bit melodramatic, Alex is using this allusion to explain to Angelica how he feels about his current political situation. But, come on! You haven't gotten this far by reading what an allusion is doing solely in the text! Where's your meta-textual analysis!?!?
[[Get your game on!|Are you ready?]]Now we're cooking!
As mentioned earlier in the website, the repeated use of European allusions in //Hamilton// is a signal of both the European education the characters possessed (both as citizens of a once British colony and a sign of wealth and status) and the assumed European-oriented education the American public generally receives in high school (again, as a once British colony and part of the many European or European-related nations that make up "Western Civilization").
For the characters: Alex's ability to make this allusion means at some point in his transition from impoverished orphan to Treasury Secretary he studied the works of Shakespeare, as one way of showing he was on par with the educated elites of his period (represented by the wealthy Schuyler family).
For the audience: The fact that most of us have an idea of who Macbeth is (even if all we know of him is that it's bad to be him, cause being in a Shakespearean tragedy is never a good thing) means we share similar educational leanings, and that Shakespeare hasn't gone out of style yet. In this way, getting the allusion to //Macbeth// means we are like the characters in this show.
Thus, this allusion intellectually unites Alex with Angelica and unites both of them with the audience over a shared facet of knowledge.
[[Not bad, punk! Play again?|Greetings]]
[[What? You want a rematch? FUHUHUHUHU!!! Bring it on!|Are you ready?]]THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Yeah, alluding to //Macbeth// is a way for Alex to show Angelica his mostly self-taught education and bring them together with the audience in the shared expectation of being able to realize being Macbeth in any situation isn't good (and that Alex feels rather fatalistic here).
But that's not all this allusion does! Casting it across the entire show, and not just the songs "Take a Break" and "Room Where It Happens," this allusion reveals a key difference between the situational understanding (in regards to his actions) of Alex and the audience.
Alex here is only applying the //Macbeth// allusion to his current situation: trying to create a national debt. It makes sense, then, to see Jefferson - his greatest political opponent in Washington's cabinet - as MacDuff, Madison as Banquo (the friend-ally he lost through betraying him; ie. - insulting Madison during "Cabinet Battle 1" after having his help in writing the Federalist Papers, mentioned in "Non-Stop"), and Congress as the woods closing in on him (Washington's not so cheery reminder that Alex could lose his job if he can't convince Congress to pass his national debt bill). This all checks out.
But there's a layer of dramatic irony here that only we the audience members understand: Jefferson isn't MacDuff - Burr is. One of Alex's faults has always been his ambition, and connected to that the inability to foresee the consequences of his actions (the way, say, Angelica can). Though correct in the moment, Alex's assessment of his relation to Jefferson is overall incorrect as Burr is his true political rival, and the one who ends his reign and existence by shooting him. Just like how it takes MacBeth too long to realize MacDuff will be an issue, it takes Alex too long to realize his and Burr's frenemy-ship is leaning more towards the enemy side. By the time Alex does realize this, there's no stopping Burr. Just as MacBeth sealed his fate in killing MacDuff's family, Alex seals his fate in supporting Jefferson over Burr.
Because we live centuries after this duel took place, and theoretically know that Burr killed Hamilton, we can hear this allusion and recognize, again, that Hamilton's ambition is short sighted and that by the time he realizes his mistakes, it's too late.
Think of it as a less obnoxious version of Oedipus' repeated statements that the murder of the past king of Thebes will be brought to justice to end the current plague, only for ~the big dramatic reveal~ that it was unwittingly him the whole time.
[[Play again?|Greetings]]Alright punk, last one!
In his 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee Testimony, Former F.B.I. Director James Comey was asked about a conversation he had with (I don't know when you're playing this so I'm gonna assume) former President Trump. Comey described how Trump pulled him aside and said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” When asked how he interpreted the intent behind Trump's words, Comey responded, “it rings in my ear as kind of, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ ”
The quote Comey is referring to was apparently stated by King Henry II of England, in regards to his frustration over the religious disagreements between himself and Archbishop Becket of Canterbury. Whether or not these were his actual words, something like them were uttered, as 4 knights later dutifully went and slayed Becket in the Canterbury Cathedral.
Of all the historical quotes to pull, why would Comey cite this one?
[[Cause he's a nerd?|Come on, you're almost there!]]
[[Obviously it's an allusion to explain the occupational dynamic Comey felt he was in.|Yeah! Suplex this other boulder!]]
Really? You've gotten this far and that's your answer?
[[I should send you back to the beginning of the game for being a litte, but I won't.|Almost There]]Exactly, punk!
Recognizing the power dynamic between the President and the Director of the F.B.I., Comey uses this allusion to describe, without over-elaborating, that statements made by an executive to one of their underlings can be seriously charged with directive intent, whether or not it was meant. For Comey, he felt like Trump was telling him to let Flynn go (this discussion occurred over the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn), but in that vague manner boss' sometimes have when they want you to do something but phrase it in such a way as to make it seem like it's your choice, even though you can kind of feel which decision they want you to take without that feeling being stating directly. As an employee, it almost kind of feels like your boss is giving you a command, but in such a way that they can retain plausible deniability if the action causes problems. Thus, like the 4 knights who killed Becket, Comey interpreted this as an occupational command; unlike the 4 knights, he didn't follow through.
As a linguistic shorthand, allusions are well suited for encapsulating complex social dynamics without cumbersome explanations. As more than just a way to prove one is a history buff, allusions like these provide a channel of communication when other avenues would be too exhaustive or tedious. Concise and cogent, allusions have the ability to tell a story in its entirety, connecting the past to the present through parallels in a history that rhymes, but never exactly repeats.
WAY TO GO, NERD!
[[The desire to see where other routes may lead fills you with DETERMINATION!|Greetings]]Come on, punk, you can do better than this!
Yes, it's a popular story that's enjoyable to remake, as the characters and their relationships are as fun as they are emotional.
But if that's all there is in regards to interacting with a text, we wouldn't have adaptations at all!
Why do we adapt stuff?
[[Let me go back and read my other choice more closely...|Round 2]]
[[I get it! Adaptation means evolving to fit a new context, and adaptations change the referent of the allusion to fit a new culture or time period.|Now the water's boiling!]]There you go!
Next to critical analysis, adaptation (in any medium) is one of the best ways to bring a text to a new culture or generation, using the original text as the backbone for relating its story, conflict, characters, and themes to a new setting. //Bride and Prejudice// takes the plot of the original novel and evolves it by adding an East meets West dynamic into the relationship between Lalita (Elizabeth) and Will (Darcy). It also adds upbeat and catchy music.
The point is, if this film had used a different name for its title (instead of a play on the original title) and just renamed all the characters (not just those from India to match their heritage), the movie itself would still be the same. But in playing with the title and explicitly keeping some of the names and plot points from the novel, //Bride and Prejudice// can take this British text and situate it in an Indian setting, while showing that some of the social dynamics at place in England in the 1800s are similar to those at play in India today.
Through textual adaptation, //Pride and Prejudice// continues to live in popular culture, and proves itself a timeless tale by virtue of its ability to adapt and evolve to the needs and nuances of other cultures and times. It is this evolution (strictly through adaptations or allusions overall) that can make a tale universal; if it cannot be adapted, it is not timeless.
[[You ready for the final showdown?|Almost There]]
bingo.
the irony is that this is a misallusion. both women think they're his desdemona because they love him and he's a military man, but that's only half of the baggage attached to that allusion. amelia is technically the one who betrays dobbin - if anything he's her desdemona, as she chooses becky sharp (her iago, in this case) over him.
the irony of this allusion is that it's both technically wrong and clearly shows that both women are attempting to sound educated, while missing the mark completely. they vaguely know about //othello// from their proper british upbringings, but clearly not enough to choose a better analogy for their relationship.
also, how un-othello like dobbin is really is ironically hilarious.
ready for the next one?
[[The thought of marching forward fills you with DETERMINATION|Next!]]
true that. neither dobbin, amelia, or the other woman (who's name i can't recall) die at the end of //vanity fair//. but that's not quite where the irony comes from.
[[So there's more to this story?|Sweet Irony]]"And all that glitters is gold/
Only shooting stars break the mold"
think all star got it wrong here? you tell me, $player_name, what's the actual adage?
[[All that is gold does not glitter.|Return of the King]]
[[All that glitters is gold.|GET DUNKED ON!]]
[[All that glitters is not gold.|Are you worthy?]]
the play’s the thing, heh. written around the 400s BCE, //oedipus// was a tragedy about a man who kills his father and marries his mother on the path they all take to avoid their fates (this is why you don't get your prophecies in ancient greece, kids. there are only two constants: fate and tropes).
this was such a popular myth it was turned into several plays, which is how we still have the story at all. if you read this play in school, that would be sophocles' version. what matters here is that its continued existence has cemented it as a classical work of literature, and thus a prime source for the name of a psychological complex. in naming the problematic dynamic between the son, mother, and father in a traditional western family after this play, freud ensured that anyone could understand what his complex was about before he even began describing it or how it works.
though freud is both seminal for psychology and debatable, the social capital of naming his most known psychological complex after a well known classical tragedy ensured that it was accessible to a wider audience than just other psychologists. see, allusions make jargon much easier for the everyman to understand, no matter how thick their skulls are!
[[The fact that this is going pretty well fills you with DETERMINATION.|The Prince]]
yup. thank freud for that one! the oedipus complex is a psychological complex that describes the relationship between the father, son, and mother based on the rule of the father in a traditional patriarchal household. cause he was pretty sexist, it doesn't take into consideration how a daughter fits into this relationship (the electra complex picks up on that) nor how this dynamic adjusts for single-parent/mother households.
[[but why oedipus?|Mother-]]as the previous question showed, allusions have an incredible reach outside of a purely juxtapositional or comparative use. so here's another one: what do yo think of when you hear/read the word machiavelli?
[[Some book on politics.|You've a tendon-cy to be right]]
[[The guy? Niccolo Machiavelli|Someone paid attention in class]]
[[The personality type?|Psychologists strike again!]]
[[Um... at least two, if not all three, of the options above. I know they're all connected, so I guess that means we keep coming back to this allusion for a reason?|Now you've cut to the bone]]
[[I've literally never heard of that word|GET DUNKED ON!]]
someone brushed up on their shakespeare! yup, as of right now the most renown variation of this line comes from wagglestick's //the merchant of venice//. a major part of the plot involves the various suits put in for portia's hand, since she's a wealthy heiress. her father left a challenge for each suitor to complete; he who passes gets the girl. the challenge is simple: between a gold, silver, and iron chest, pick the one with portia's image. loser is yeeted from the house.
"all that glitters is not gold" comes from the letter tucked into the eye-socket of the skull in the golden chest, as part of a message about how outer finery can hide inner deterioration.
old wagglestick gave us a lot of words and phrases with his plays that we still use today! makes sense, since he's the greatest thing since they put the pocket in pita, second only to the bible in english literature. every british (and by extension american) author after shakespeare was influenced by him in some way - from gothic writers calling upon //hamlet// for their ghost stories to the romantics arguing his genius via originality (ironic, given all his plays were based off of purported historical events or greco-roman tales). even international authors haven't escaped this bit of british colonization either, though they're adapting shakespeare's plays in a variety of clever ways to assimilate his works into their cultural frameworks.
it's truly ''laughable'' the ''multitudinous'' amount of words he coined. truly it's ''zany'' and ''unreal''. but, eh, these puns are ''lackluster'', so i'll show some ''restraint'' and just ''swagger'' on home. please, continue.
[[The knowledge that Sans has one more question for you fills you with DETERMINATION|Let's finish this!]]"All that is gold does not glitter"
sounds like someone's read j.r.r. tolkien's "the riddle of strider"/"song of aragorn" from //the fellowship of the ring//. as much as i approve of the choice, i'm gonna hafta disagree with ya here. tolkien didn't originate this quote, though he did tweak it to fit his rhyme scheme.
ta tell ya the truth, it is hard to find a true origin for this quote. as of now, though, we can collectively agree to give that title to the earliest, most popular iteration we've got. so which is it?
[[All that glitters is not gold.|Are you worthy?]]
[[All that glitters is gold.|GET DUNKED ON!]]right-o. known for its infamous political advice, //the prince// was a political treatise written by niccolo machiavelli, published in 1532. the advice this text gave political rulers in monarchical systems relied on a mixture of brute force, manipulation, and deception to maintain power and structure. it's where we get the "it's better to be feared than loved" quote baddies like to use to justify murder and torture and stuff.
the brouhaha this text ignited was almost immediate, as a variety of political and religious rulers denounced the-ends-justify-the-means logic of this text. even various playwrights created characters as representatives of this kind of ruling practice, and they were never the ones you rooted for.
[[Good to know, but I think there's more to this.|The Prince]]
[[Okay, so we've got the man and the novel, but what about that third option?|Psychologists strike again!]]
[[So the type of ruler in ~The Prince~ was named after the author... which means logically, since this is a pretty clearly laid-out set of characteristics, that the personality type was named after the author too.|Now you've cut to the bone]]
[[Ya know what. I just realized I don't care|GET DUNKED ON!]]
see, kids, this is why we study history. niccolo machiavelli was a dude who lived in italy from the late-1400s to the mid-1500s. what matters 'bout him now, though, is the legacy he left on political theory. see, the dude wrote a book called //the prince//, which was a detailed set of advice for political rulers, especially of the monarchical sort (since italy was still a bunch of principalities at the time - and wouldn't be united as one actual nation the way, say, england or france was at the time, until the 1800s - the reach of this book written in italian vernacular was expansive and impactful for all of those italian princes ruling over their own cities).
published posthumously, the book received immediate critical backlash against the spine-chilling, "by any means necessary" mentality it advocated in political rulers. it also definitely increased the distrust and distaste of the general public for politics and political rulers. the kind of ruler this text called for was alluded to in other political philosophies (and even theatrical productions) through the use of machiavelli's last name, giving us the term "machiavellian."
[[I think I want to backtrack and see what I missed...|The Prince]]
[[Okay, so man and novel, check. What else is there?|Psychologists strike again!]]
[[So man wrote book, man died, book got published, book got man reviled, psychologists left to repurose the name?|Now you've cut to the bone]]
[[Yeah, I see where you want me to go and I don't care for it. What's in it for me?|GET DUNKED ON!]]isn't psychology fun, $player_name?
i think so, but what do i know.
anyway, yeah, considered one branch of the "dark triad" of personalities, machiavellianism consists of traits such as lack of empathy, duplicity, manipulation, self-centered ambition, and a general lack of adherence to conventional morality.
excellent examples of this personality type include (in no particular order):
-milton's satan from //paradise lost//
-lord petyr baelish from //a song of ice and fire// series
-becky sharp from the somewhere aforementioned in this game //vanity fair//
-iago from //othello//
-and tony soprano from //the sopranos//
the name itself is derived from the man, the myth, the legend: niccolo machiavelli, vis-à-vis the infamy of his most known work, //the prince//. this political philosophy held up the ideal that effective and successful political rulers had to eskew conventional morality in order to keep their principalities and kingdoms running. this requires, then, an unsurprising list of normally abhorrent acts, from bribery and manipulation to assassination and torture. you can see why some of these characters are listed now, can't you?
[[Kay, so I got this. Tricky Nicky came first, then his book, then the appropriation of his name as a pejorative for those "I do what I want for my own benefit only" types. Not that being able to trace this lineage isn't cool and all, but why does this matter?|Now you've cut to the bone]]
[[I'm kinda more interested in finding other machiavelles right now, actually.|GET DUNKED ON!]]this is what we mean when we say allusions are databases of information to draw on. because it was easy to allude to the content of //the prince// through the deceased machiavelli's last name, the allusion swiftly found itself in several linguistic lexicons as a descriptor of the kind of person //the prince// called for.
yet machiavelli saw people like this in his own time, and thus //the prince// represents a synthesis of the personality traits machiavelli saw as politically advantageous for a ruler. we use "machiavellian" as an actual name for a certain psychological profile because we still see these kinds of people today (though to varying degrees). because this allusion inherently works as a bag of traits that can be applied to a suitable character, it fits easily into the taxonomy of psychology.
this matters here because it shows that even works - and by extension their authors - who are reviled can still be influential enough to remain in the cultural discourse centuries after their creation, because they are still culturally //useful//. like "herculean," this is also an example of allusions that are so frequently used they adapt to become vocabulary words as an even more direct shorthand for their referent than normal proper nouns are.
afterall, it's so much easier to say scar from disney's //the lion king// is machiavellian than to sit down and list his selfishness, his ambition, his //pride//, his unscrupulous usurpation of the throne, his willingness to execute a child, his manipulative tactics to control the hyenas (giving food to the poor is literally how dictators get their power), and his tyranny over the pridelands. it's just //so much// easier to call him a machiavellian tyrant and move on to him getting //cat-apulted// off pride rock (fun fact, hyena's jaws are so powerful they can bite through bone - since they're scavengers and all).
[[You see Sans is ready to end this game, and that thought fills you with DETERMINATION.|It's the final question]]speakin' of italians with a bone to pick, ever heard of that dante guy? might know him for his trilogy, //the divine comedy//, though the only one people seem to care about is //the inferno//... if ya've ever heard the phrase "abandon hope, ye who enter here," or anyone talkin' 'bout burning in a particular circle/ring of hell (like where the child molesters go, and people who speak in theaters), then you've heard an allusion to //the inferno//.
and speakin' of burnin' in hell, did ya catch the list of all the damned in this book? cause this ain't even half of it:
Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero, Hippocrates, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Tristan, Helen of Troy, Filippo Argenti, Farinata degli Uberti, Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti, Epicurus, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, Pope Anastasius II (though possibly the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I), Dionysius I of Syracuse, Guy de Montfort, Geri del Bello, Capocchio, Gianni Schicchi, Master Adam, Bocca degli Abati, Count Ugolino, Fra Alberigo, Branca Doria, Cain, Judas...
point bein', some of those aren't solely biblical or mythological allusions. some of those are historical figures, and guys dante actually knew or heard of cause they were alive at the same time. so what gives?
[[He's showing off?|GET DUNKED ON!]]
[[Like you said, he's got a bone to pick wit' 'em.|glad we're on the same page]]
[[He's making a pointed statement about the different rings of hell?|getting brighter, kid]]
[[He's doing both beta and gamma (thought debatably alpha's right too).|hot dog dinner!]]
"Along with the idea of romantic love, she was introduced to another - physical beauty. Probably the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought. Both originated in envy, thrived in insecurity, and ended in disillusion." - toni morrison, //the bluest eye//
as one of the most renown black female authors in contemporary u.s. history, toni morrison is as infinitely quotable as she is infinitely quoting. she's constantly making biblical, mythological, folkloric, and historical allusions. one of her writerly and teacherly goals is to create space for the reader to interpret and critique american society and culture, through her stories focused on the experiences of african americans from all walks of life. adroit and masterful, she's a must-read for anyone who wants to be both intellectually and emotionally challenged while still in the throws of poetic prose.
but i digress. we're here to focus on her use of allusions in her aims to deconstruct the destructive standards of her society. for example, her first book //the bluest eye// beings with an allusion to the //dick and jane// primer readers, which were a series of books about a traditional white, middle-class family published from the 1930s to the 60s, used to teach children to read. morrison deconstructs the classic format of this text, through repeating the same paragraph of text (drawn from the primer) three times, changing it with each iteration. what starts out as a properly, grammatically-correct, pictureless paragraph devolves first into a punctuation-less, semi-coherent paragraph, then into a complete mess of garbled letters, with no punctuation or spacing at all.
this isn't the first nor last time morrison will allude to contemporary items, places, people, or events, as all her works are littered with these references (some more direct than others).
why would she do this?
[[Because modern allusions make her texts feel real and grounded?|Tis effective]]
[[Because it makes writing easier.|GET DUNKED ON!]]
[[Because it actively engages the reader in connecting the allusions to the characters and their situations?|Interpretive Collaboration]]
[[Porque no los tres?|Good job, kid]]
*Morrison, Toni. //The Bluest Eye: With a New Afterword by the Author.// Plume, 1994. p122.ha, he sure does.
there's lot of references to past or contemporary historical figures in dante's //inferno//, for a variety of reasons. some are there to be called out for takin' his stuff when he was exiled from florence, others are there to be legitimately criticized for their actions or judgements. and some, like homer, are just there to express that christianity wasn't sure what to do with people born before the big jc.
left to squander seems kinda harsh, but eh, i'm not one to judge.
is this it kid?
[[Hmmm... I don't think so. I think Dante's up to something.|getting brighter, kid]]
[[Obviously not! Pokin' fun at other people only works when they deserve it. Spite should be a function of justice only.|hot dog dinner!]]
[[Nope, this is it.|GET DUNKED ON!]]that he is!
by including actual past historical figures and his contemporaries, dante was able to bring different types of sin into the categorical system he sets up as a kind of merger of classical and christian ideals. added to the allusions he could pull from classical antiquity, mythology, and the bible, this provided dante with enough examples of each sin, and its subsections, to elaborate on the various circles of hell with different rings, ditches, and rounds.
the nuance this creates actually pans out to be a pretty thorough adjudication and critique of the various kinds of sins, and the degree of their severity, which humanity can fall prey too (with according poetic justice). this also ensures each sin has the face of someone a reader from that time-period would recognize.
pretty elaborate way to poke fun at people, eh?
[[Definitely! But doesn't that mean he included his contemporaries here to comment on their actions in a public social setting, while and by comparing them to other well known sinners?|hot dog dinner!]]
[[Cool. So the thought that I'm done here can fill me with DETERMINATION now?|GET DUNKED ON!]]
guess ya aren't bad after all, heh.
ya've got it. the reasons dante would include his contemporaries and other historical figures is layered. part of it is dante taking pot-shots at people he disliked; part of it is to actively call out those individuals (or retroactively critique them, if they were already a bag-o-bones) for their actions or judgements. because //the divine comedy// was an immediate hit, this worked well to keep a popular discourse on the morality or immorality of famous figures going.
all of this was also done while acting as dante's attempt to synthesize the classical, legal, and christian systems of justice that permeated the culture of italy at that time. that's why //the inferno// specifically is //so detailed// in the layout of each ring of hell, its inhabitants, the distance between each ring of hell and god, and its according punishments. not only that, //the divine comedy// literarily is somewhere between the bible and classical epics, like //the aeneid//, acting as a bridge in the history of literature through both its form and by being written in italian (the vernacular, an increasingly popular language to publish in, as opposed to the elitism of medieval latin which was the standard for important writings at the time).
including contemporary figures, then, both provided dante the chance to enter the public and political discourse through allusive parallels to famous sinners from myth and the bible, and ensure that each circle of hell had a face of someone his contemporary readers would recognize.
historical critique, cultural fusion, literary milestone, dante ascended from the depths of hell to the heights of heaven in this trek through the three realms of the afterlife. the egregious amount of (popular and obscure) allusions used throughout //the divine comedy// is part of what made it so powerful in the 1300s, and part of what makes it such a curious and resonant puzzle today, as we sort through the references we do understand and research the ones we don't.
so, what are ya still doing here?
[[Restart?|Greetings]]
[[The thought of there being more to this route than what you've just been through fills you with DETERMINATION.|Critical Route]]
that's a good point. because most of her texts are set in the 20th century, utilizing allusions from that time period helps situate the characters and their actions firmly in the time period.
the quote in the last passage came from the third-person narrator of //the bluest eye//, as they describe the destructive psychological impact going to the movies has on pauline breedlove, who becomes fixated on the standards of beauty and tropes of romance she sees on screen. pauline at one point even directly mentions going to see a film with clark gable and jean harlow (of which, historically, there were 6) (morrison, 123).
allusions like this do two things. first, as stated before, it helps ground pauline's lessons in real movies that we, as the reader, can go watch to understand what she learned; we can see for ourselves the kind of beauty she tries to imitate in how jean harlow looks, and the kind of romance she came to desire from relationships between jean and clark's characters. second, it also highlights the impact movies can have on the psyches of those who go to watch them, specifically to the audience members who were not included in the ideal (or assumed) target audience. what i mean by this is that the clark and jean movies weren't made for an african american audience member, of which pauline is included; they were made by predominantly white casts and production companies for a predominately white audience. thus, the standards they espouse serve to direct and reinforce what a white, middle-class (mostly male because of male-gaze) audience member would be familiar with.
the problem morrison is pointing out through this allusion, specifically, is that these white, middle-class standards were not open, nor accessible, to the african americans or other people of color in the audience, so the aspirations these films could instill would always be frustrated by the socially limiting, white-dominant society around them.
[[So we as the reader are supposed to read about this african american woman attempting to imitate white standards of feminine beauty and realize this wasn't gonna fly well? Like, she was licked before she even started because american society was founded on racism, and it still existed in the 20th century and wouldn't have let her pass for white standards of beauty?|Interpretive Collaboration]]
[[Okay, so we take this and multiply it by 100, right? All the allusions in Morrison's novels operate on this level of grounding the text in the appropriate culture while also acting as a double-edged sword to criticize that culture and how ours inherited its legacy?|Good job, kid]]winner winner hot dog dinner.
while allusions like the //dick and jane// and clark gable and jean harlow ones serve to ground the narrative in the time-period in which it is set, they also serve another purpose. as readers who theoretically have studied history (or who have access to the internet), we are trusted to understand those references. thus, morrison will drop a bunch of them in her novels, with minimal elaboration. this does three things.
first, it means that we the reader are trusted to look into the allusions if we don't get them, or want to refresh our memories of what they may mean. in her novel //home//, a man in a zoot-suit appears at least twice, once each to the siblings frank and cee. though seemingly inconsequential, the "zoot suit" bit is peculiar. if you don't know what a zoot suit is, here's the short of it: zoot suits were a rather pointed male fashion choice (starting in the african american community and moving to latinos, italian americans, and filipino americans in the 1940s), being baggy and loud. in a time period where the white, male fashion choices were significantly toned down, these suits both functioned as a means of forcing american society to notice the non-white population (a literal, visual act of standing out, as opposed to blending in with the normative fashion), while also making racial profiling significantly easier.
world war 2 history buffs may remember the zoot suit riots, a series of civil riots in the u.s. in 1943, in which minority groups (often younger individuals, initially and predominantly latinx americans) wearing zoot suits were stripped and beaten for such "extravagance" and "unpatriotic" behavior during the war, because all excess material //should have// gone to the war effort. starting in los angeles, similar riots erupted throughout the u.s.
second, then, the allusions morrison actively utilizes engage the reader in trying to understand what they could mean in the context of the narrative and the characters. why would frank, on his way to rescue cee from a eugenic-experimenting doctor, see the zoot suited man on his train? why would cee, after healing from her abuse and coming into her own as an individual with agency and worth, see the zoot suited man at the end of the novel? is he suppose to represent finding yourself, and subsequently taking up the space you deserve and being noticed? does he represent pride in one's ancestry and culture that frank and cee either forgot or originally lacked? is he a symbol of rebellion against an unjust system, which frank fought against in saving cee, and cee fights against in finding agency in herself? is he connected to the dead, (re)buried body that opens and ends the narrative? you could argue all of these - how he's related to frank and cee's individual character growths in different ways - all because his fashion sense is loaded with cultural and historical significance.
third, it leads us to ask ourselves how these allusions reflect on our current society. what is the current example of a rebellious fashion sense, that also has cultural and political significance? most people don't wear zoot suits any more (unless it comes back into style, in which case think about the time between its rises in popularity), but surely we can see that the mentality behind the suit still exists today. or does it? where did that mentality go? how did it adapt to a more current era, if it did? and how do we react to outfits like that? are they accepted or rejected?
[[So this is the power of an allusion? It grounds the text, while opening the past and present to analytical criticism through how that allusion functions in the text?|Good job, kid]]
[[So that's it? I'm done, right?|GET DUNKED ON!]]precisely!
good writers will use allusions to ground their work in reality, or call out to a reader that they're part of the same community because of a shared knowledge of the allusion. it could be funny, tragic, or pretty much irrelevant; regardless, these allusions usually stay contained in their moment in the text.
great writers will ensure that the allusions they choose fall in-line with the themes, characters, and situations they are crafting. this ties the allusion into the text more resonantly, making it a richer site for analysis and understanding, as it can be expanded to apply to scenes other than the one(s) in which the allusion is made.
masterful writers will utilize allusions that are not only relevant in their own time, or in the setting of their text, but can also be brought outside of the text as a tool for analyzing the cultural reality of the reader. both textual and meta-textual, allusions like these morph into fertile ground for digging out both what the author intended, and what is occurring beyond, above, behind, and underneath the author's intent. when an allusion is integrated in this way, it has the potential to be timeless, and to help its text be timeless as well.
tibia honest, kid, no text is universal. but, if it can be understood, adapted, and reapplied in a new context then it can be timeless. and that keeps it coming back (even after dying).
anyway, it was nice to see ya keep an open mind, $player_name. keep at it!
see ya soon.
[[The thought that you've chosen wisely fills you with DETERMINATION! Play again?|Greetings]]