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.
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
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