Applicability: Difference between revisions

Line 4:

When it comes to writing thematic stories, there are essentially two methods to go about it: allegory or applicability. Which method you use will depend on how obvious you want your theme to be.

[[J. R. R. Tolkien|JRR Tolkien]] himself hated formal allegory because the reader was forced to see nothing but the author's POV on what the author considered the theme. In answer to the many allegorical readings of the ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' ~~-- which~~ he eventually got tired of getting letters ~~about -- he~~ stated the book was not an allegory, but had ''applicability'' ~~-- the~~ story simply happened to be comparable and applicable to many [[Real Life]] issues.

[[J. R. R. Tolkien|JRR Tolkien]] himself hated formal allegory because the reader was forced to see nothing but the author's POV on what the author considered the theme. In answer to the many allegorical readings of the ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''—which he eventually got tired of getting letters about—he stated the book was not an allegory, but had ''applicability''—the story simply happened to be comparable and applicable to many [[Real Life]] issues.

Applicability is the reader interpreting what the ''theme'' of any given work is. Sometimes a reader's interpretation of the meaning of the story is very different from authorial intent; Works written to be [[Anvilicious]] despite hammering the creator's purposed theme will have an alternate interpretation of the work on part of the audience. Or put another way, writing something that is able to have multiple interpretations, only some of which are those that the author specifically intended. Applicability can give a fictional work different interpretations even on different readings, and is one reason [[Alternate Character Interpretation]] and [[Wild Mass Guessing]] are such active topics in fandoms.

Compare [[Lowest Common Denominator]]. Contrast with [[The Walrus Was Paul]], where the audience tries to find meaning in a work when in fact the work isn't ''supposed'' to have a hidden ~~meaning -- the~~ author's just messing with them.

Compare [[Lowest Common Denominator]]. Contrast with [[The Walrus Was Paul]], where the audience tries to find meaning in a work when in fact the work isn't ''supposed'' to have a hidden meaning—the author's just messing with them.

Often leads to [[Periphery Demographic]], [[Misaimed Fandom]], [[Shipping]], [[Broken Base]], and/or [[Internet Backdraft]]. This is the root of many an [[Epileptic Tree]]. See also [[Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory]].

Line 23:

== [[Literature]] ==

* [[J. R. R. Tolkien|JRR Tolkien]] kind of coined the word, as seen in the quote at the top. He always denied his Middle-earth works to be an allegory of anything, but said that because they were just so archetypical and universal (literally a lost mythology), their stories and themes could be compared and ''applied'' to many real-life/historical/fictional stories and issues. It's one of the reasons why ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' is so difficult to pigeonhole and figure out what the theme ~~is -- he~~ didn't put [[Anvilicious|any obvious one]] in. This explains why people from a wide spectrum of viewpoints tend to read the same book and yet get widely different interpretations of the theme of the book. This lack of an obvious theme also makes it hard for some readers to get into the books because they expect the books [[Anvilicious|to clearly show what theme it is]].

* [[J. R. R. Tolkien|JRR Tolkien]] kind of coined the word, as seen in the quote at the top. He always denied his Middle-earth works to be an allegory of anything, but said that because they were just so archetypical and universal (literally a lost mythology), their stories and themes could be compared and ''applied'' to many real-life/historical/fictional stories and issues. It's one of the reasons why ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' is so difficult to pigeonhole and figure out what the theme is—he didn't put [[Anvilicious|any obvious one]] in. This explains why people from a wide spectrum of viewpoints tend to read the same book and yet get widely different interpretations of the theme of the book. This lack of an obvious theme also makes it hard for some readers to get into the books because they expect the books [[Anvilicious|to clearly show what theme it is]].

** In later editions of the book, Tolkien specifically goes into detail about the incorrect notion of his book being an allegory of [[World War II]], which was probably a comparison he was tired of. He argued that if his book were based on [[World War II]], Saruman would've gone into Mordor during the chaos and found out the knowledge needed to make his own Ring of Power. The War of Ring would end up being a war with [[Evil Versus Evil]] with Hobbits being destroyed in the process.

** The Eowyn subplot can remind western readers of the story of Joan of Arc. To Chinese readers Eowyn's story can easily be seen as a version of the story of Hua Mulan.

Line 29:

** The infamous debate about the Balrog's wings is the result of this. The text itself about the balrog was vague (it can be interpreted to mean the Balrog ''had'' wings, or it can be interpreted to mean the Balrog's shadow ''made it look like it had wings''). but it has been fiercely debated whether or not the Balrog has wings.

* On the cast commentary for the ''Lord of the Rings'' movies, Sir Ian McKellen makes tacit reference to the "innocent physical affection" displayed by Sam towards Frodo in the book and the rather famous [[Ho Yay|modern interpretation]] of it. Bean and Wood also comment on a specific scene, mentioning a fan who wrote in to thank them for including a nod to this rather than avoiding it.

* Miguel de Cervantes originally wrote ''[[Don Quixote]]'' as a spoof of [[Knight Errant]] tales, but its hero was interpreted as idealism personified for many readers. Annoyed, Cervantes wrote a sequel to hammer home the point [[Misaimed Fandom|the readers apparently missed]]. Much to his shock, the second half of was considered more brilliant and well received. Different ages have tended to read different things into the novel. When first published, it was usually interpreted as a comic novel. After the French Revolution it was popular in part due to its central ethic that individuals can be right while society is quite wrong and seen as ~~disenchanting -- not~~ comic at all. In the 19th century it was seen as a social commentary, and the Russian's interpretation of [[Don Quixote]] has shadows of the [[Messiah Creep]], but no one could easily tell "whose side Cervantes was on."

* Miguel de Cervantes originally wrote ''[[Don Quixote]]'' as a spoof of [[Knight Errant]] tales, but its hero was interpreted as idealism personified for many readers. Annoyed, Cervantes wrote a sequel to hammer home the point [[Misaimed Fandom|the readers apparently missed]]. Much to his shock, the second half of was considered more brilliant and well received. Different ages have tended to read different things into the novel. When first published, it was usually interpreted as a comic novel. After the French Revolution it was popular in part due to its central ethic that individuals can be right while society is quite wrong and seen as disenchanting—not comic at all. In the 19th century it was seen as a social commentary, and the Russian's interpretation of [[Don Quixote]] has shadows of the [[Messiah Creep]], but no one could easily tell "whose side Cervantes was on."

** Literary critic Harold Bloom's wrote in his article,[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/dec/13/classics.miguelcervantes ''The Knight in the Mirror'':] ''"The aesthetic wonder is ... when we stand back from the huge book and ponder its shape and endless range of meaning. No critic's account of Cervantes's masterpiece agrees with, or even resembles, any other critic's impressions. Don Quixote is a mirror held up not to nature, but to the reader. How can this bashed and mocked knight errant be, as he is, a universal paradigm?"'' That means that every reader will interpret [[Don Quixote]] on his own way, and all of those interpretations will be valid. It also means that none of them could be valid, because every reader’s impression ''of himself is reflected by the novel''. [[In Soviet Russia, Trope Mocks You|You reader can interpreted all other novels, but in Literature/DonQuixote case, the novel interprets YOU!!]].

** This was parodied by [[Jorge Luis Borges]] in "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote." The story is about a man who attempts to write a novel ''identical'' to [[Don Quixote]], from a modern perspective.

Line 41:

== [[Music]] ==

* The [[Eagles]]'s song "Hotel California" has several interpretations due to the way the lyrics were written. Don Henley called it "our interpretation of the high life in Los Angeles" and later reiterated "it's basically a song about the dark underbelly of the American dream and about excess in America, which is something we knew a lot about." Still it's interpreted as an allegory of cocaine addiction, Satanism, or a mental hospital.

* [[The Beatles (band)|Paul McCartney]] wrote a song in support of the American [[Civil Rights Movement]]. He changed it from "Black Girl" to "Black Bird" in the spirit of this ~~trope -- in~~ his words, "so you could apply it to your own problems."

* [[The Beatles (band)|Paul McCartney]] wrote a song in support of the American [[Civil Rights Movement]]. He changed it from "Black Girl" to "Black Bird" in the spirit of this trope—in his words, "so you could apply it to your own problems."

* [[U2]]'s music is known for its wide range of interpretations, be it religious or secular, universal or personal, literary or pop-cultural.

== [[Theater]] ==

* ''[[The Crucible]]'' by Arthur Miller. At the time it was staged during the witch hunts of [[The Fifties|the 1950s]], Miller strenuously denied ''The Crucible'' was written as an allegory concerning the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who became notorious for his excessive zeal in rooting out Communist sympathizers. When the play, ''[[The Crucible]]'', was staged in China in the early 1980s, people had just recovered from the turmoil of the "[[Cultural Revolution]]" (~~1966-76~~). During that time, [[Mao Zedong]] had a policy of stamping out all that he deemed old and useless, like Taoism. In the play, they found the similarities between the events of the Cultural Revolution and ''The Crucible''. This explained why the play received such a warm welcome at that time.

* ''[[The Crucible]]'' by Arthur Miller. At the time it was staged during the witch hunts of [[The Fifties|the 1950s]], Miller strenuously denied ''The Crucible'' was written as an allegory concerning the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who became notorious for his excessive zeal in rooting out Communist sympathizers. When the play, ''[[The Crucible]]'', was staged in China in the early 1980s, people had just recovered from the turmoil of the "[[Cultural Revolution]]" (1966–76). During that time, [[Mao Zedong]] had a policy of stamping out all that he deemed old and useless, like Taoism. In the play, they found the similarities between the events of the Cultural Revolution and ''The Crucible''. This explained why the play received such a warm welcome at that time.

** The play was certainly a reaction to and commentary on the activities of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, but Miller deals with it as a series of broad, timeless themes, rather than as a direct allegory for any particular series of events. Very little can be read as directly symbolic of any contemporary events; rather, the content is archetypal in nature.

* [[William Shakespeare]] is a wonderful case for this. All of his plays have been subject to multiple interpretations throughout history and even argued over today on [[This Very Wiki]]. There's so little in the way of clear stage directions, or of the Bard's own writings, to be sure of what he thought of anything. For examples:

** Does [[Hamlet]] [[It's Not You, It's My Enemies|really love Ophelia at all]] or [[All Love Is Unrequited|does he just barely tolerate her]] ~~-- and~~ what's the deal with Hamlet himself? [[Emo Teen|Why can't he get his act together]] -- [[Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass|or his is act]] ''[[Obfuscating Stupidity|always]]'' [[Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass|together]]?

** Does [[Hamlet]] [[It's Not You, It's My Enemies|really love Ophelia at all]] or [[All Love Is Unrequited|does he just barely tolerate her]]—and what's the deal with Hamlet himself? [[Emo Teen|Why can't he get his act together]] -- [[Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass|or his is act]] ''[[Obfuscating Stupidity|always]]'' [[Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass|together]]?

** [[The Taming of the Shrew|Should a man break an unruly wife like a horse, or is it a]] [[Stealth Parody]] [[They Do|that leaves the two main characters ready to live as real partners]]?

** [[The Merchant of Venice|And]] ''[[Alternate Character Interpretation|what about Shylock?]]''