In Defense of Obscure References
A recent On the Media addressed the issue of older journalists using older references in their work. The upshot was you shouldn’t do it because it alienates your younger readers who might not know what the hell “23 skidoo” means.
Allow me to retort.
1. Educating the Public
When I was a kid and I ran into a word I didn’t know in something I was reading, I was encouraged to look that word up in the dictionary. I didn’t, usually, which is why I don’t know a lot of words. However, had I done it, wouldn’t I be smarter now?
When I come across a reference I don’t get in something I’m reading, and I’m motivated enough, I look it up. It is, in fact, easier now, to look shit up than ever before in the history of looking shit up. It is, in part, how I learn. It is, in part, how I’m recommended down the long tail of things.
Twitter trending topics, in fact, is one big obscure reference. When I see #moonfruit and I can’t figure out from the context of the tweets what the hell they’re talking about, I type it into Google and find out very quickly that it’s just some disappointingly uninteresting Web site that happens to be running a promotion that day. But now I know.
So all these obscure references (assuming they’re presented in an engaging enough manner) can actually help make us all smarter.
2. Encouraging a Curious Readership
I want people to be curious. I think society is better off. Putting references in your content (especially if you bother to hyperlink them to explanations) helps encourage a curious readership. It provides the opportunity to reward curiosity. Just sticking to references you’re sure 90 percent of the population will get never even starts the discussion.
3. Your Identity as a Writer
Just as I would not discourage writers from using obscure references, I would also not encourage them to use them if it doesn’t fit their style. Each writer has his or her own voice and to that voice they should stay true. Take Dennis Miller. He basically built his game on obscure references to the point where when he briefly co-hosted Monday Night Football, a post called the Annotated Dennis Miller appeared the following day to explain all the stuff he was talking about the previous night.
I’ll be honest. My own voice is very tied to the notion of making connections and explaining new things in terms of old things which means, quite frequently, the relatively obscure reference. The worst of it is in my movie previews. I’m merciless. When I use an old movie to explain the plot of a new movie, you’re SOL if you don’t know the full title and plot of the old movie. When I describe the new Star Trek movie as Kirk Begins, God help you if you haven’t seen Batman Begins. (Not a great example since most of you have, but you get the point.) But if you have seen Batman Begins, I feel like there’s a special bond created, even for a moment.
That example, of course, doesn’t lend itself easily to points 1 or 2, since that’s not an easy reference to cite, but I still feel that all three points as a whole make an argument for keeping those obscure references coming. I feel that, like any writing tool - metaphor, hyperlink, comma - you use it where you know it belongs in your work. As our good friend Anton Chigurh said, “You pick the one right tool.” That comes from here.
, Copycat). Cast doesn’t exactly suck, with Billy Crudup, Marion Cotillard, Rory Cochrane and Lili Taylor thrown into the mix.
and probably won’t change that here, especially under Michael Bay’s direction.
, Caddyshack), but not all the time (Club Paradise), but he’s co-writing with some Office alums here, so here’s hoping. Nice cast: Jack Black, Michael Cera, Oliver Platt, David Cross, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin’), Vinnie Jones, Hank Azaria, Olivia Wilde and Xander Berkeley. Oh, and since it’s one in four comedies, Judd Apatow is producing.
and fucking it up for no good reason.
