A Fable, or A Short, Moralizing Story about Animals

The Vernacular by tdomf_b6e97 — May 1, 2009 at 1:42 am | 9 comments | | Print

Once upon a time there were a number of animals in a setting appropriate to the species of the animals present. One animal, the Exemplary Animal, embodied a set of characteristics and predilections deemed favorable by the Author, but this fact was not revealed by the Narrator, who for artistic and stylistic purposes had a separate point of view and voice altogether. Another animal, the Admonitory Animal, embodied a set of characteristics and predilections deemed by the Author to be dangerous, countercultural, and subversive; but this fact was also excluded from the fable’s introduction by the Narrator. There were also several other animals who were symbolically unimportant, and who merely served as a means of advancing the fable’s plot.

At a certain point, the symbolically unimportant but nonetheless plot advancing animals acted so as to give rise to a particular situation. The situation required action on the part of both the Exemplary and Admonitory Animals, but their respective courses were unclear. The stubbornly moralizing Author prompted the Narrator to go to great pains in describing the situation such that it would be apparent that it mirrored a common human situation familiar to the fable’s audience, albeit oversimplified due to a desire on the part of the Author for universal applicability and some general constraints upon short moralizing stories about animals to deal with complexity without becoming arduously long and muddling the all-important clarity of their symbols.

After consideration, the Exemplary Animal responded to the situation in a way consistent with the traits the Author wished to promote in his fable, and was rewarded accordingly: specifically, in a way suggestive of the idea that audience members who act similarly in corresponding situations might also be rewarded thusly. The Admonitory Animal responded in a way that was not necessarily opposite, but was nonetheless consistent with traits the Author did not look as favorably upon. As such, the Admonitory Animal faced repercussions sufficiently harmful and relevant to his actions so as to communicate to the audience that the actions caused the repercussions and that the repercussions were undesirable.

At the conclusion of the fable, the Narrator—acting in a capacity not envisioned, endorsed, nor fully understood by the Author—drew attention to the contrived simplicity of the situation, the unreasonable lack of emotional complexity in the characters, and the arbitrary nature of a medium in which an author (though not necessarily this one) can stipulate the results of actions when the opposite results are perhaps equally likely, thereby calling into question the very relevance of short moralizing stories about animals as a meaningful way of communicating moral truths.

In an attempt to regain control over the content of his work, the Author revealed a brief, easy-to-remember summation of the lesson he’d hoped his fable to teach, but, inexplicably, it rang somewhat empty. The Narrator wondered if this could be construed as a statement about the intimidating difficulty of genuine moral philosophy, but decided it was best not to read too much into it.

9 Comments

Patrick Atwater
2009-05-11
13:14:34
Cory, moral philosophy extraordinaire that you are, I don't think you need to worry about people confusing your work with that of Aesop. So yes, while there is a very real distinction between moral philosophy and the simple moralizing of fables, I don’t think that one necessarily precludes the other (nor is one necessarily a priori “better” or “more profitable” than the other). Consider a fable that preaches the value of hard work. Sure there’s probably a lot more nuance in truth than that statement, and yes that fable probably is awfully formulaic. But there is value in that. Not everyone can go do the depths of moral philosophy that you can. Of those that can, most aren’t really willing to go to that depth (for better or for worse), choosing to spend their time on other things (making sick cash perhaps). So I think your piece fundamentally conflates accuracy and precision to the detriment of understanding. Yes, genuine moral philosophy may be more precise, but fables often enough are pretty damn accurate. And that has value too.
Aesop Rock
2009-05-11
17:48:12
Although I see his reasoning, I disagree with Patrick on this one. Simple moralizing creates the inaccurate impression that the world can be reduced to a simple, easily packaged message of right and wrong. The very existence of a modern field of moral philosophy shows the fault in fables.
Patrick Atwater
2009-05-11
19:18:13
Sure, Aesop Rock. That is a risk. But moral philosophy runs the risk of stultification from its complexity. Consider me right now. A simple fable moral might be that I should work hard because hard work builds character. Thus, I should study for finals. A more nuanced, moral philosophy appreciative outlook might take into consideration the fact that I'm engaging in a somewhat interesting discussion about the value of moral philosophy. Plato says one thing, Singer another. So maybe I should study for finals, maybe I shouldn't. We're not yet sure. Maybe I should read some Kant.

I think, though, we want to say I should be studying for finals. So, sometimes fables have use, and occasionally even more use than moral philosophy.
Cory
2009-05-11
20:20:34
(The following snark is all in good fun, I promise.)

Pat, if I may, the closing paragraph in which the Narrator-- the story's real protagonist-- decides not to read too much into the story he has narrated, is meant to indicate that the main point here is not that philosophy always does better than fables, but just that one cannot always read a generalized truth off of a single event. To read this and take it to mean that I think story-telling is a silly exercise would be to miss that point entirely.

At the risk oversimplifying, perhaps the main lesson we can learn from this exchange is this: I should have written a fable about how to take a joke.
Patrick Atwater
2009-05-11
21:26:24
Cory, at the risk of being equally snarky, consider:

"the Author revealed a brief, easy-to-remember summation of the lesson he’d hoped his fable to teach, but, inexplicably, it rang somewhat empty."

Notice you say that "it [being the fable-lesson] rang somewhat empty." That strikes me as not the opinion of the "author" or the "narrator", but a universal pronouncement. That to me seems to pretty anti-fable and simplistic moralizing "truths" in general, which would mean not that "one cannot always read a generalized truth off of a single event", but rather that generalized truths from a single event "ring empty." So although I most likely could use a fable about being able to tell a joke, maybe you could use a fable about making sure a joke is told before the audience is expected to laugh.
Cory
2009-05-11
21:58:18
Pat, I guess you've got me: I'm suspicious of moralizing stories. Note, though, that I wrote one. So, I clearly think they can be interesting, fun, and useful.

Nonetheless, I hope that you'll notice that "it" refers to the summary of the moral in this particular story, not of story-morals in general (for one thing, if I'd meant that, I would have used a plural pronoun or a phrase such as "like all such summaries..."). I still think it takes some, as Professor Elliot would say, "twisting oneself into a pretzel" to take my statement about how this story turns out to be a comment on all how all similar stories will. That'd be like saying that the screenwriter for Coach Carter believes that all high school basketball teams from impoverished areas will always fail to win their league championship, just because in his movie one particular team did so.

Making that inference does exactly what I mean this fable to warn against: reading generalized truths off of single events.
Patrick Atwater
2009-05-12
00:47:23
Sir-

Yes, on a cursory level you are completely right. But remember that the lessons fables offer are supposed to be universal. And your story is a self-styled fable. So... it's a fairly straightforward reading to conclude that your statement "it rang somewhat empty" is more general than you imply. Too bad. I was looking forward to attempting to twist myself into a pretzel.
Musab
2009-05-12
03:14:55
Patrick, I don't think we've ever met, or if we have I don't remember, but you're acting like a tool. Cor, the story
was hilarious and I wholeheartedly accept its moral without any critical analysis as the narrator urges.
Cory
2009-05-12
08:45:59
Moose- Pat's just playing around. We're cool. But thanks.

Pat, the moral, as suggested in the last paragraph, is supposed to be universal: be cautious about the sort of fable the Author tries to tell here. So, there are two points to make in light of this. First, insisting like you do that some other event in the story be universalized still misses the point. Second, even in more archetypal fables, it is the moral that is supposed to generalize, not the plot. So, when-- I don't know-- the lion gets a thorn in his paw, we're not supposed to take that to mean that all lions will step on thorns, even if the author does mean to have his moral reveal a universal truth. That the Author (a character in this fable) revealed a moral that rang empty in this case is a part of the plot of this fable.