The Extent of Applicability

[Elianna]

(I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestation, 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 vaired applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' and 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

We've most likely all read these words before and have argued ad nausem about it, but here's another dose for any bolemics out there:

Originally Posted by Halfir

I am going to quote his own theory of applicability (FOTR; Foreword), in which he stresses the freedom of the reader against the purposed domination of the author. In other words, in this instance, what the reader might believe is as good as what the author might believe!

Ah! I cringed when I read this, sorry Halfir. But "as good as what the author might believe"?

Maybe it's just me being protective of my own writing that this absolutely rubs me the most wrong way possible, but maybe I'm right that the author might have a better idea than the readers about what s/he is talking about, especially when it comes to "sub-created" worlds.

Okay, so the good Halfir is saying "in this instance", so let's give that part of his arguement stress. When are these instances when the reader's application are just as good as the author's? To what extent can we say that our opinions are 'applicable' and not just wrong?


P.S. to Halfir: I'm not saying that I think your application on the thread from which I took the quote is "just wrong"; pax.

[Kuruharan]

Hmm...that vaguely reminds me of this thread.

Enjoy.