Similes, metaphors and allegories are the unholy Trinity of bad storytelling.
Somewhere in humanity’s distant past, a storyteller was recounting the tale of a skirmish between two warring tribes, embellishing details of a battle he didn’t witness. Elaborating on the strengths and prowess of his tribe, and the weakness and cowardice of their enemies, the storyteller struggled with his limited vocabulary to keep the story going, to turn a simple act of brutality into an epic tale that would be remembered.
In a moment of inspiration, the storyteller compared the leader of the tribe to a bear, large and powerful — and invented the simile. He said their enemies were wolves, vicious and predatory — creating the first metaphor. Cheered by his audience, he described the rest of the story as a battle between bears and wolves — and the allegory was born.
And in so doing, he doomed the future of storytelling to a constant struggle for imagery, a search for similes, metaphors and allegories that would make each story seem greater than those told before — and the simple skill of recounting events as they happened was lost.
Similes, metaphors and allegories are the unholy Trinity of bad storytelling, the linguistic embodiment of the over-rated maxim Show, Don’t Tell. Collectively, they are more frequently abused than the exclamation point, the deus ex machina and the phrase "As you know". They can be used to brilliant effect, but more often than not they only exist to demonstrate the author’s inability to tell the story clearly.
Similes, metaphors and allegories are all essentially analogies: they serve to illustrate something unknown by comparing it to something known. But, like writers, they usually don’t work. This simple principle of description-by-comparison has been largely abandoned to a game of linguistic excess, where writers construct ever more outlandish and distracting imagery as if there was a merit badge for it (or, more accurately, to prove their literary cred to the critics in their writing group).
Similies and metaphors have their place, though: in 19th Century Symbolist poetry. The worst of the trio is the Allegory, which has the power to ruin entire stories.
Allegory is when the entire story becomes a metaphor for something else — whether or not the author intended it as such. You’re probably familiar with the term from its most commonly-used phrase, "But it’s really an allegory for … ", usually followed by an unconvincing "Oh yeah, I knew that."
Allegories are written (or interpreted) because people have a hard time justifying the time it takes to read a book without deducing or ascribing a "deeper meaning". This is especially true of so-called "classic" works, which require more effort to read and thus should yield greater reward than a contemporary work. By the same token, writers create allegorical stories because they don’t want their work to be read and forgotten in an afternoon.
There are two kinds of allegories:
There’s little we can do about the second group — there will always be a dialogue about the "deeper meaning", because English professors have to justify their tenure, and lit students their tuition, by endlessly re-analysing stories with newly-invented critical frameworks called Post- something — post-feminist, post-colonial, post-caring. The most an author can do is deny the bogus interpretations, as J.R.R. Tolkein did when people insisted that Lord of the Rings was an allegory of the Second World War, or revel in the infamy of competing interpretations, like Don McLean has since recording "American Pie".
But stories designed to be allegories are the scourge of literature, intent on making it impossible to enjoy a story without having discuss it afterwards to check if your interpretation is "right".
There are really only two circumstances that warrant an allegorical story:
It’s no wonder that some of the best allegorical stories are written during wartime, or in repressive or archly conservative societies, such as Orwell’s Animal Farm. The allegory is an essential tool in those conditions, both for communicating your meaning covertly to a receptive audience, and for deniability when the powers-that-be wise up and come knocking.
Outside those conditions, it’s a tool of literary pretension, deliberately obfuscating the meaning of a story in order to make your readers feel clever for having decoded it, to court critical and academic discussion, and to apply in advance for Penguin Classics reprint rights. It’s also a convenient way of excusing the fact that the story doesn’t stand up on its own.
That’s the eternal question. In every allegorical story, there is a conflict between the surface story and the deeper meaning. The best ones are entertaining enough on the surface to be enjoyed even if the reader never perceives the allegory. It’s possible to enjoy Tolstoy’s War and Peace, for example, as an epic tale of a nation in conflict, without understanding that it’s really an allegory for life in high school.
The Holy Grail of allegorical writing is timing the "aha" moment, when the reader discovers the deeper meaning, for as close to the end of the story as possible. For example, the final sequence of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is very powerful when you realise the whole movie, culminating in Richard Dreyfus’ decision to leave with the aliens, is an allegory for the moral dilemma of deadbeat dads.
The problem, though, is that allegories almost never achieve this. Either the allegory is so obscure that you only discover it when the pseudo-intellectual husband of your wife’s friend mocks you at dinner for not having figured it out (after he read it in a review), or the allegory is so blatantly signposted that the surface story reads like its own Cliff Notes.
This is the essential problem with allegories: the surface story is usually dull or even meaningless without understanding the allegory, and once you understand the allegory, it’s boring and predictable.
All allegories are parables, or satires — but in the information-rich 21st Century, allegories are preaching, or satirising, to the converted. The "deeper meaning" of your allegory has almost certainly already been discussed ad infinitum on talk shows, blogs and message boards, and if your readers don’t understand the idea already, they won’t get it from your story.
In Western countries at least, there is just no need for allegory anymore — when the moronic antics and draconian douchebaggery of the sitting US President are daily fodder for bloggers, talking-head pundits and comedians alike, what is there that you can’t say, except allegorically?
The only thing worse than a story that relies on allegory is a one with no deeper meaning at all. The allegory then becomes an exploration of why a reader would want to waste their time.

So what about the Narnia books? They’re heavily allegorical, but the surface story is fun and the characters are entertaining…..
(Of course, Tolkien was opposed to Allegory and insulted Lewis’s books…..)
Which is funny, because Tolkien was a Catholic living in a Protestant Country and filled his mythology with Catholic symbols and allegorical references also…
Two words - Animal Farm
I must apologise to the estate of C.S. Lewis, the estate of George Orwell and to all the other 20th Century authors of allegorical novels that I accidentally omitted from my otherwise exhaustive list of novels written by J.R.R. Tolkein that Tolkein denied were allegories of the Second World War.
This Reason is more spot on than usual, and uncomfortably reminds me of how utterly I ruined my own novel attempt at “updating” the King Arthur myths as NEON KNIGHTS. It dealt a death blow to what would have otherwise been a low-to-middling coming of age story that was violently trying to ape YEAR OF THE ZINC PENNY by Rick DeMarinis. Allegory kills stories. Dead. (Even ones that weren’t all hot to begin with.)
Narnia isn’t an allegory, it just has a single allegorical character (Aslan); when everyone figured out he was supposed to be Jesus, then the lit-snits way overreacted and started making very questionable calls such as suggesting a beaver stood in for the English working class.
After rereading what I wrote above (something I never do with my manuscripts), I realized that I may have made the “book” I completed sound better than the reality of it. I just like to make one thing clear; I’ve written several books and I’ve discovered that I couldn’t write a decent novel if it was a ransom demand by one of the people who kidnapped my nieces.
I think what youre really trying to say is that we should choose our allegories carefully…
#17 is, as my former writing coach would say, “spot on.” People who can’t write teach writing, and what they teach is to use the word “like” 3 times in each paragraph. If you haven’t noticed this, read any work by anyone who has an MFA in writing. We now have two generations of “literary” writers who believe that writing IS metaphor…
Lou: Apparently you’re not aware that much of the Middle-Earth chronology was inspired by the Eddas, a well-known collection of old Norse mythology. Tolkein himself has admitted this. If I had had any doubts of this, they would have vanished when I tried to read the Silmarillion last summer. In terms of entertainment value, it’s about like trying to read the following parts of the Bible: the creation story, Noah’s Ark, every single genealogy in the entire Bible, the books of Leviticus and Sirach, and the description of Solomon’s Temple, with bits of the book of Judges sprinkled here and there in order to distract you from how incredibly boring the rest of it is. (Note: No disrespect towards Christianity, Judaism, or the scribes who wrote the Bible is intended.) However, there is a much stronger resemblance to the Eddas than to anything in the Bible, the Catechism, or the entire history of Christianity. I’d love to see where you’re getting the Catholicism thing from.