If I arbitrarily caricature this debate as taking place along a Stu- axis, I confess that while I have an intellectual sympathy for Stu's position, in practical terms I'm right behind Jane.
Jane's comparison of analogies with keywords is a nice one; no one really suggests that all Warriors are the same, but there are certain underlying similarities that means that it makes a good start point, and often a good end point, too, if they are just faceless extras in the story. Of course, there is all sorts of additional detail to layer on as and when they become important.
So too with analogies. They are a great starting point for teaching, providing that initial referent onto which people can hang on to, before you start confusing the issue. For most people 'like the ancient Persians' means nothing, so it is a useless comparison; it would be like someone asking what an NPC looks like and me saying 'he looks like my grandfather when he was younger' (unless, of course, he were famous or my interlocutor knew him, but we'll say neither applies).
Of course, all analogies come with baggage. That's why it is best to mix them ('the Lunars? They're a bit like the Romans, but with a slightly weird mystical eastern religion going on, too'), and be sure you make their limitations clear. When people take analogy as an exact referent, then step on them, but my experience is that people are smarter than that, given the chance.
Now, I certainly agree with Stu that people can sometimes use analogy as a tool to _limit_ imagination. But this is the same kind of hobbling impulse that makes people undermine what hasn't already been written into canon or forget that this is purely a consensual fantasy construct, and one based upon delirium, pun and whimsy as much as serious socio-politico-economic-mythographic modelling. Such people deserve our pity and compassion, condescension or contumely (to taste), nothing more.
All the best
Mark
Powered by hypermail