tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10113567.post112950942195534854..comments2009-07-13T18:46:18.031-07:00mo piehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12320627370276331465noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10113567.post-1129554642788730532005-10-17T06:10:00.000-07:002005-10-17T06:10:00.000-07:00I totally agree with you. I enjoy multiplicity of meaning better than the didactic approach.mo piehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12320627370276331465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10113567.post-1129542412358063362005-10-17T02:46:00.000-07:002005-10-17T02:46:00.000-07:00I read <I>Animal Farm</I> for school when I was 13, and being a little swot went off and read <I>1984</I> of my own accord. <I>That</I> was traumatizing.<BR/><BR/>It's nice to read about someone's "fresh" reactions to the book. We were told all about the allegory as we went through it (they didn't assume 13-year-olds would know all about Communism) so in a way were told what to think.<BR/><BR/>I love the crossword-puzzle elements of allegory, but my gut feeling is that symbols are more intellectually fruitful precisely because you don't need that prior knowledge of what is going on - and (trying not to go all Roland Barthes here) you as a reader can participate in the text, because of that very multiplicity of meaning. Another reader might pick a different set of meanings.<BR/><BR/>And I liked the funnel metaphor, which says all that much more elegantly, frankly.Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14530845147391401083noreply@blogger.com