3 ms·
The obscured threat doesn't have to be worse than the overt one for a parable to be applicable. In fact, almost any allegory deliberately uses fantastical imag
by croon 6y ago
The obscured threat doesn't have to be worse than the overt one for a parable to be applicable.
In fact, almost any allegory deliberately uses fantastical imagery to illustrate a point, because it's easier to point to something when the contrasts are higher.
Are you suggesting that Godzilla can't be a stand-in for Hiroshima simply because a literal Godzilla would be worse?
The commentary on erosion of trust was political then and would be now, even if the backdrop has changed.
- Ygg2 6y ago> The obscured threat doesn't have to be worse than the overt one for a parable to be applicable. It has to be, if the message is that obscured threat is worse than the overt. At some point, I wonder what is really in the work, and how much is this just the critics projecting their own thoughts onto it.
- croon 6y ago> It has to be, if the message is that obscured threat is worse than the overt. The ranking doesn't matter. One is a fictional alien, the other is human interaction. If the alien virus is worse, does that negate any and all (lesser bad) commentary? Likewise, I don't bother comparing which is worse of humans or zombies in Walking Dead. The zombies are an exciting (debatable now) fictional backdrop to the anthropological exploration.