Applicability: Difference between revisions

{{quote|''"I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse '[[Trope Codifier|applicability]]' with 'allegory'; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other resides in the purposed domination of the author."''|'''[[J. R. R. Tolkien]]'''}}

* ''[[Neon Genesis Evangelion]]'' is known as one of the most analyzed anime series ever regarding its plot and the symbolism present through most of it. It has been quipped that ''Evangelion''{{'}}s plot and characters are just as deep as one thinks they are.

* Anti-mutant prejudice in ''[[X-Men (Comic Book)|X-Men]]'' can stand in for a metaphor for any number of [[Real Life]] prejudices. Fans have tended to take this very literally and argue about what the "originallyoriginal meaning" was and how it has changed. [[Word of God]] has confirmed, upon occasion, that individual writers have used it for a specific metaphorical purpose ([[Grant Morrison]] has said that he used his run to comment to the [[Demonization]] of young people. Not even this squares completely with his comics, but it makes a lot more sense if you [[Draco in Leather Pants|sympathize way too much with Quentin Quire]]). But that does not mean that every writer has used it as a metaphor, or has used it for the same one every time.

* [[J. R. R. Tolkien]] kind of coined the wordterm, 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 offor [[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 [[w:Hua Mulan|Hua Mulan]].

** In a letter, a fan asked Tolkien if the flying steeds of the Nazgul (large naked, leather-winged birdlike monsters ) were pterodactyls. His reply was that if that's what the reader ''thought they were'', it could be a valid interpretation of the text.

* On the cast commentary for [[The Lord of the Rings (film)|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."

** 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]]'' onin 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.

* ''[[The Wonderful Wizard of Oz]]'' is a case of confusing applicability with allegory. The connection between ''The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'' and the then-contemporary American political landscape was not even raised until 1963, when summer school teacher Henry Littlefield, while trying to teach the 1896 Presidential election and the turn-of-the-century Populist movement to bored history students, stumbled upon the idea of using the characters and events of ''The Wizard of Oz'' as metaphors to teach the concepts. He and his students made a number of connections - the Scarecrow represented the farmers, the Tin Woodman the factory workers, the Wizard was President Grover Cleveland or Republican presidential candidate William McKinley, the Cowardly Lion was Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, the silver shoes were the silver standard, the yellow brick road the gold standard, and so on - and Littlefield eventually wrote an article, "The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism,", which was published in the magazine American Quarterly in 1964. You can read this article [https://www.webcitation.org/5uPB7UNa7?url=http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm here]. Unfortunately, this was eventually taken as meaning Baum wrotehad deliberately written his book as an allegory of the political landscape at the turn of the century despite the fact Littlefield believed Baum had no political agenda when he wrote the book.

* [http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong.html This article] at [[Cracked.com]] lists several books whose main theme was interpreted in a completely different manner than expected.

* Several books have been written on the subject of ''[[Harry Potter (novel)|Harry Potter]]'' symbolism, to the point where there is now a greater body of work devoted to explaining ''Harry Potter'' than there is ''Harry Potter'' to explain. On the other hand, there are some obvious allegories in the books. Lycanthropy=AIDS, bloodismblood purism=racism, apparition=driving, etc. Basically, the ''society'' described has many clear allegories to real life, but the ''morality'' just has applicability, along with a lot of symbolism thrown in on top.

* ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask|Majora's Mask]]''. Is the game an adventure or a mystery? The one that you take into it (or out of it) will directly affect how much you enjoy the experience.

* ''[[Avatar: The Last Airbender]]'', much like ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', has many historical inspirations without ever falingfalling into a straight allegory of any particular event.