I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
True. But in 21st century colloquial speech, a linguist would have to admit that, descriptively, “widely applicable” and “allegorical” are nearly synonymous. But I’m also a fan of the quote, history does not often repeat itself - but it rhymes. So whether it’s fictional history or rough allegory, the end result is the same.
in 21st century colloquial speech, a linguist would have to admit that, descriptively, “widely applicable” and “allegorical” are nearly synonymous
Ha. You’re the second person to have suggested that, so maybe there is something to it. But to be honest I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think I’d ever use the term allegory without authorial intent. (But to save repeating myself, I’ll just direct you to my reply to @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz.)
Or, at the very least, even if you are inclined to disregard authorial intent, there’s still a subtle difference between allegory and applicability in that allegory requires an almost direct one-to-one relationship between the text and various elements of the real world, while applicability can be much more subtle or broad strokes. Basically, applicability is a broader term than allegory, a superset.
Fun fact: allegory had a different meaning back when Tolkien lived. Language evolved. Tolkien never mentioned hating what allegory now means - an interpretation of a story by the audience as representative of another issue. In fact, he said he was a fan of that sort of thing in your quote.
I’m not sure that I agree it has changed. To me, an allegory implies authorial intent. Some classic examples being Tolkien’s friend Lewis whose Narnia novels were an allegory for Christianity, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, an allegory for early Communist USSR, or The Crucible by Arthur Miller, an allegory for America’s red scare.
If it isn’t done with authorial intent, it’s still absolutely possible to be a valid reading of the text that there are parallels, but IMO that’s no longer an allegory.
The Matrix is a trans allegory, despite the fact that neither of the Wachowskis knew they were trans at that time. They put their feelings of gender confusion, dysphoria, and euphoria into the movie, despite not understanding those feelings. And it made it a masterpiece. That’s proof allegory doesn’t require intent.
It’s not analogy, it’s allegory. It applies too well to the world.
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
True. But in 21st century colloquial speech, a linguist would have to admit that, descriptively, “widely applicable” and “allegorical” are nearly synonymous. But I’m also a fan of the quote, history does not often repeat itself - but it rhymes. So whether it’s fictional history or rough allegory, the end result is the same.
Ha. You’re the second person to have suggested that, so maybe there is something to it. But to be honest I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think I’d ever use the term allegory without authorial intent. (But to save repeating myself, I’ll just direct you to my reply to @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz.)
Or, at the very least, even if you are inclined to disregard authorial intent, there’s still a subtle difference between allegory and applicability in that allegory requires an almost direct one-to-one relationship between the text and various elements of the real world, while applicability can be much more subtle or broad strokes. Basically, applicability is a broader term than allegory, a superset.
I can’t xD
The fuck you on about, mate? You got a problem with allegories?
I dunno if you’re just memeing or if you genuinely don’t know.
In case it’s the latter…I posted a fairly famous quote from the author responsible for the text this community is based on.
I really didn’t know, so thanks for explaining it.
Fun fact: allegory had a different meaning back when Tolkien lived. Language evolved. Tolkien never mentioned hating what allegory now means - an interpretation of a story by the audience as representative of another issue. In fact, he said he was a fan of that sort of thing in your quote.
I’m not sure that I agree it has changed. To me, an allegory implies authorial intent. Some classic examples being Tolkien’s friend Lewis whose Narnia novels were an allegory for Christianity, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, an allegory for early Communist USSR, or The Crucible by Arthur Miller, an allegory for America’s red scare.
If it isn’t done with authorial intent, it’s still absolutely possible to be a valid reading of the text that there are parallels, but IMO that’s no longer an allegory.
The Matrix is a trans allegory, despite the fact that neither of the Wachowskis knew they were trans at that time. They put their feelings of gender confusion, dysphoria, and euphoria into the movie, despite not understanding those feelings. And it made it a masterpiece. That’s proof allegory doesn’t require intent.
Downvoted for disliking allegory.
It’s a Tolkien quote about his buddy CS Lewis’s Narnia and he’s up his own ass in it.
You downvoting granda Tolkien?
I’ll do it again