I have written of my fascination with connections, parallels, and symbolism before. These are the words I’ve chosen to talk about this phenomenon, though I’m not entirely happy with them. I suppose I’m more or less stuck with them, now—the tags have been created already, anyway.
There’s a few points I want to make about the extraction of said connections. First, they do not need to be explicit or intended in the situation/artwork/etc. itself. They are a matter of interpretation, a pedagogical, meditative, or even devotional tool, not a means of literary, artistic, or any other type of criticism. This is how many of the connections I note will be drawn.
Second, the connections/parallels are not exclusive; they are independent of and have little or no bearing on other, equally valid modes of interpretation or observation. The connections drawn simply float on top, unaffected by the truth/falsity of other interpretations (or indeed, often of the events themselves).
Writers and theologians of the medieval period wrote of four levels of Biblical exegesis, all independent, though interwoven. First was the base level literal interpretation. Second, the “typological,” which connected the Old and New Testaments. Third, the moral, as in the “moral of the story.” Finally, the “analogical,” which concerns future events—i.e., the prophetic. Now, all these could be applied simultaneously to any Biblical story. (In fact, I surmise they could probably be adapted for other texts as well.) They were not held to be competitive. This, I think, is something that, while it may not be discounted in contemporary discourse, is nevertheless worth reemphasizing today. Multiple analyses of texts can all be valid at once, as long as they operate on different “levels,” as it were. (Note that this does not yield a form of relativism—a là “what you believe is true for you.” No. The different levels or layers of analysis and interpretation are non-competitive with each other; preferring one over the other has nothing to do with epistemological issues. Rather, it’s just a question of personal emphasis—which you understand or resonate with best, and thus learn the most.)
This is what I mean by saying that connections do not need to be intended. A connection may be made between certain situations, circumstances, or artworks not as a definitive “what does this mean,” but rather as a sort of object lesson. The actual inciting set of “connectees” is in a sense irrelevant—they are only the basis for a more-or-less symbolic and pedagogical idea. Thus, a “negative” connection is not necessarily an indictment of the things between which the connection is made, nor is a “positive” one a recommendation. All this will hopefully become clearer as I post a few examples.
Again, I may (and more than likely will) be pulling meaning out of a conjunction of things or events without intending anything about them individually. I am simply after meaning, learning, profundity, and wonder. Sometimes these are found in unexpected places; the world is wonder-full that way.
An Unending Suicide Note 