XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books, alt.usage.english   
   XPost: alt.english.usage, alt.religion.christianity   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Tue, 17 May 2016 22:41:16 -0600, Jerry Friedman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 5/17/16 12:22 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 17 May 2016 07:53:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 5/17/16 2:35 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >>>> Save the Allegory!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An entire literary tradition is being forgotten because writers use   
   >>>> the term allegory to mean, like, whatever they want.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> By Laura Miller   
      
      
      
   >>>> What people usually mean when they call something an allegory today is   
   >>>> that the fictional work in question can function as a metaphor for   
   >>>> some real-world situation or event. This is a common arts journalist’s   
   >>>> device: finding a political parallel to whatever you happen to be   
   >>>> reviewing is a handy way to make it appear worth writing about in the   
   >>>> first place. Calling that parallel an allegory serves to make the   
   >>>> comparison more forceful. Fusion says that Batman v Superman is a   
   >>>> “none-too-subtle allegory for the fight between Republican   
   >>>> presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.” (It is not.) The   
   >>>> Hollywood Reporter calls Zootopia an “accidental anti-Trump   
   >>>> allegory”—this despite the fact that there is no literary form less   
   >>>> accidental than allegory. The meaning of the word has drifted so far   
   >>>> that even works that aren’t especially metaphorical get labeled as   
   >>>> allegory: A film about artistic repression in Iran is a “clunky   
   >>>> allegory” for ... artistic repression in Iran.   
   >>>   
   >>> She's got a point there.  I also dislike the idea that calling a fantasy   
   >>> or science fiction story an allegory makes it respectable somehow.   
   >>   
   >> I think she goes too far, but agree with her point about many people   
   >> going too far the other way, and calling things allegories that are   
   >> not allegories at all.   
   >>   
   >> I disagree with her when she says that allegories can only be about   
   >> abstract qualities that are personified. I think allegories can also   
   >> be about people and events in the world. I don't think it's wrong to   
   >> call "Animal Farm" an allegory, for instance.   
   >   
   >I like Traddict's suggestion that it's a roman à clef.  Do you consider   
   >that a subcategory of allegory?   
      
   I'm not sure. In some instances, yes, but not in others.   
      
   I would say "Animal Farm" is both, but a book like "The Dharma bums"   
   is a roman a clef, but not allegory.   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >>>> Allegory or metaphor: The distinction might seem obscure and academic   
   >>>> to many readers. Shouldn’t allegory be grateful to get any attention   
   >>>> at all? Isn’t it just an archaic literary mode that nobody uses   
   >>>> anymore? Yes and no. About the only people creating true allegories   
   >>>> today are political cartoonists. But a culture never entirely discards   
   >>>> its roots, and allegory, which first appeared in the waning years of   
   >>>> the Roman Empire,   
   >>>   
   >>> Ahem.  See for example Plato's /Republic/, Psalm 80, and Ezekiel 16-17.   
   >>   
   >> I think allegory was popular back then, though, and all sorts of   
   >> non-allegorical works were given allegorical interretations.   
   >   
   >Such as the Song of Songs?  That's still no reason to say that late   
   >Roman times are when allegory first appeared, though.  In my opinion.   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)