blogs_blog_1374

sure why not?

 

 

 

they loved what they thought it represented, not what it really was.

Of course.

They loved the same statue, but not the same woman. If they had met each other and had talked about "Lynn" and "Ann" without the context of the statue, they would have no idea that they were talking about the same thing. Each man had formed, in his own mind, a specific personality to fit the statue that wasn't the same as the others. Two different personalities for two different types of women, each one more appealing to one of the "fools" and not the other. The only thing in common was that these two fantasies were based off of the same statue.

 

That, and that the fantasies were derived from two rather desperate fools. ;P

Your first sentence is exactly, word for word, how I would have answered, Jithra. You do a good job of explaining it as well.

 

Another way I like to word it is that they saw the same being, but to each it had a different meaning, and so in the greater sense the subject of the two loves was different. There's a difference between meaning and mere being.

 

I wrote this after getting into a heated discussion with several friends, none of whom seemed to understand where I was coming from. In the meantime, this allegory can be interpreted and applied however the reader may wish.

 

Oh, and yeah, I felt that although through the story it seemed self-explanatory, it needed to be clarified right of the bad that they were outright fools.

 

Your Honor,

Emperor Kraggh

They both created a personality for the statue, rather than talking to the statue to see what it really was. In that sense, neither of them fell in love with the statue, but what they wanted the statue to be.

 

Of course, the statue wouldn't have answered, at which point they would have both realized what fools they were and looked for a real person to love, rather than an ideal. Which applies to so many things in life.

 

Nice food for thought!