According to a new story in The Miscellany News, an article in the most recent edition of the newspaper references itself.
The story, by author Aidan McEachern, is being written right now on his computer. However, at the time of publication it will be printed in newspapers across the Vassar College campus.
Readers of the story have noted that the article written by Mr. McEachern is in and of itself a commentary on the fact that the article is writing about its own outrageous meta nature. Further, sources familiar with the article have pointed out that the title also mentions the article’s self-referencing style. Even the article itself mentions the fact that its own title references the article referencing itself, even stating that the current sentence references the title referencing the article, which references itself.
For more clarification, The Misc reached out to the preliminary expert in all things confusing, Christopher Nolan. In a letter to The Misc, Nolan commented: “Look, I made a whole movie about time proceeding forwards and backwards simultaneously, but I have no clue what this article is saying.”
Critics of the article have brought up the question of whether an article which references itself should be considered a work of journalism which deals with the subject of its own writing, or a literary piece which concerns itself with the subject of its own dealing with the subject of its referencing to its own contents. Some have even gone so far as to say that an article which talks about itself is commenting on the reality that it in and of itself is writing about the fact that it is using its own sentences to explain that it is allocating its own paragraphs to the purpose of explaining that it is talking about its own subject matter’s pattern of cyclical chaos.
At this point, the reader of this article may wonder: “What is even the point of such confusing self-commentary? Surely all this text is just a waste of space. I mean, who would publish an article this foolish? And why now on the second of April?”
Perhaps this hypothetical reader is correct. Maybe this article should just drop the whole “meta” thing and write about a serious journalism topic like the Referee Society Whistleblower or the National Rarity Shortage. Even the article itself raises the question of whether referencing itself is really the right decision. But, alas, even reporting that the article in question (this one) has any self-doubts about its own self-commentary is in itself a self-reference, proving that maybe it is impossible to escape such paradoxy after all.
Very confused and with no hope in sight, one may wonder how life can go on in a world where something can reference its own being. Perhaps one may daydream of a simpler world. A world full of green trees, rolling hills and beautiful gardens. A world where the sky is blue, the sun is shining and the line at the retreat is shorter than Lord Farquaad as a child. But, most importantly, a world where dramatic irony and metafiction are a thing of the past. A world where no movie, no book nor article knows anything of its own creation. A world where Meta is still named FaceBook, and “framework” just means the industry of building frames. But, alas, we can only imagine. In the meantime we must embrace the meta. Well, how shall this strange article end? Perhaps the third to last sentence will reference how the article asked how it would end. Perhaps the second to last sentence will suggest a possible ending; then again, maybe not. Or perhaps this sentence—the one you are reading right now—will be the one which puts an end to this meta madness once and for all.