When creating any work of fiction, there always seems to be a bit of tug and pull between what the story means to you, the writer, and what the story means to your readers.

Many prime examples of this exist within stories and movies alike, and to use an example that's simple enough, the movie "Inception" is about people who go into dreams. However, because these people spend so much time in dreams, they can sometimes struggle between telling reality from a dream. To fix this discrepancy, the main character has a trick. He spins a top. If it was a dream, he could make the top spin indefinitely. However, if it was reality, the top would fall over.

*Spoiler Alert* After the finale, the main character gets a seemingly happy ending. But then, suddenly cautious, he goes and spins a top. The story ends right there, never revealing if the top fell over or not. Was he in a dream? Was it real? Does that answer even matter?

I had a similar experience on this very site with my one-shot Vampire's Kiss. The vampire main lead has been stalking a woman the entire night, convinced he has fallen for her. At the end of the short story, he decides that he doesn't want her to grow old and die without him, so he bites her.

The way I wrote the story (and I found depending on your familiarity with the more modern Vampire lore), it's left up to the reader to decide whether the woman dies in the end, or whether she was turned into a vampire herself. I've had readers come up to me angry that I killed her and it didn't seem like the vampire would do that. Then others come up to me wondering why he'd leave her there on the street if he was going to change her.

And you can psychoanalyze his actions and the "true" outcome of the story all you want. Physics majors have measured the top in Inception and tried to calculate its angle of rotation to see if it would eventually tip over or not. However, when it comes to making demands upon the original author, that's the problem. The author intended the ending to be ambiguous. The author wanted you to think about two potential options. The author wanted you to take from the experience what you wanted to.

It doesn't matter what the creator thinks is the cannon ending, because when the creator made the creation, he never intended it to have a canon ending. The ambivalence was the ending.

So why am I talking about ambivalence? The reason is because today I'm talking about symbolism and interpretation of works. Or perhaps, more specifically, the seeming balance between applicability versus allegory.

Applicability in the context of fiction is the act of describing something as it exists. A story that is applicable is a story that stands on its own ground. Its characters, its actions, and its inevitable progress are all ground in the common sense of that world. Things happen for the reasons that happen, and those reasons work within that narrative.

Allegory is simply a fancy word for symbolism. In this case, this is what everything means. A story should make sense within it's narrative, but the story is really about alcohol abuse, and these characters represent alcoholics while these characters represent their family dealing with the effect of their alcohol addiction. Or, how about this one. The sheets are red because it represents lust. These drapes in this scene are purple to show you the regality of her love interest.

In the past, I've mentioned using symbolism (and allegory), to set up foreshadowing and create a more interesting story. However, there is certainly a lot of allegory that gets applied to fiction that the author never intended to have either. Sometimes, red sheet are just red because they needed a color. Like my examples of Inception and Vampire's kiss, just because the author never intended for those sheets to mean anything, doesn't mean they don't mean anything. The reader themselves can take what they want from any store. If the story speaks to them because these characters resonate with their father's alcohol addiction, it doesn't matter that the author never had those intentions. The readers themselves are free to gain what they want from a story, and sometimes improve upon it.

Some authors, such as Tolkien, pride themselves on writing applicability over allegory. His job is to tell a coherent story. It's up to you, the reader, to choose to read more into that story, and to apply it to real life. Now, don't let applicability confuse you with reality. Tolkien writes about a magical world with dark lords, goblins, orcs, elves, and dwarves. None of this is real, but on the surface, each race is a unique construct for this story. Dwarves aren't a substitute for one group where the dark lord is a substitute for another (Although many people claim dwarves were based on a racist interpretation of the Jewish population)

In the Matrix trilogy, there is a fan theory going around suggesting there are two matrixes. So, the first matrix is of 1990s/2000s Earth, and the second matrix is Zion. Thus, no human's have escaped from the matrix, and all human's live within one layer of the matrix or another. Zion merely exists as a second layer to catch all those who can't accept the first one.

Pretty heavy stuff, but I can guarantee you the Wachowski sisters (yeah, they're both women now) had not thought of doing something like that when they created the Matrix trilogy. All of that allegory, all of that extra stuff came from people thinking outside the box.

However, these gals weren't against a little allegory of their own. Spoiler alert, Neo is an anagram for the one, and he's Jesus. The story is not light on the intentionally displayed symbolism of Neo and his godliness. He dies and lives again. He raises the dead. He spouts electric angel wings upon his death. And of course, the crucifixion pose.

Some allegories have become so overused that they are practically tropes of their own. How many stories have you seen like the matrix showing a man with his arms splayed out like a crucified Christ to show that he is our savior? Every superman movie at least. How about the reflection on a surface where it's half one persons face and half another person's face to show their dual nature and/or how they are two sides of the same coin.

While I won't necessarily say clichés are bad, I think cliched allegories are definitely a hot spot in your fiction. However, does that mean that all intentional allegory is bad?

Most stories that use allegory heavily are accused of being too obvious, like the clichés mentioned above. However, the opposite can be just as damning. If you're too obscure, then people aren't even going to get the message you're tying to get across. Just as satire fails when no one can realize it is satire, allegories fail when no one can draw parallels between your work and the points you want to make.

However, I'm going to have to disagree with Tolkien here when he suggests that allegory should always be a freedom given to the reader. There are many allegories from many classic works that are essential because of their allegory. How well would animal farm work if you took out it's commentary on communism and the reign of Stalin? It might have still been an okay book, but I think the allegory, the standin for a real situation, propelled it into something more.

Most of our most famous classic stories, from red-riding hood to humpty dumpty, were written as allegories, attempting to teach children lessons about morality and safe practices. The symbolism was the point of the stories, and without that symbolism, the story itself makes considerably less sense.

The entire point of the humanized animals (other than for fetish purposes we will never speak of again), is that these animals represent aspects of ourselves. Sure, by making talking, walking (on two feet) animals, we can add some humor and puns, but at the end of the day, any story involving a non-humanoid put into a humanoid roll only works because it is an allegory.

Do you think anyone gives a crap about toys? Do you think I'm really tearing up over Woody and the gang in Toy Story as they go through random adventures? As they get thrown away or broken, is the fact that they are a toy the thing that makes this work? Are we identifying with a toy? No, rather, we identify with the situations. We identify with the feelings Woody is feeling. Things like outliving your usefulness and finding yourself in a world that no longer needs you. The allegories for Toy story are far more meaningful than application of that story.

However, saying that, everyone needs to understand that a story that can't be applied in an appropriate way is a story bound to fail. A story needs to make sense within its own narrative, and if you're so desperate for a story to fit your allegorical rulebook, you can quickly break the story by having characters act in nonsensical ways. Allegory may be the icing that makes a story taste great, but you still need to have the structure and characters to hold that icing, otherwise it's just a sweet mess.

No one would find themselves endeared to Woody if he was just a walking narration dropper. It was the fact he was an established character. The so-called favorite toy and leader of the group, prideful, smart, and determined... that made us care for the allegory they provided over the films. It was good application that allowed us to appreciate their allegory.

I think that like most things in writing, there is no right answers. You can create allegory or remain strickly applicable. For most people, it will always be a balancing act between how much you want to teach the reader and how much you want the reader to come to the conclusions on their own. You're never going to be able to control the readers thought processes, and every reader is going to come away with wildly different experiences with anything they read.

This is why people have opinions on writing and those opinions don't necessarily match up. There is certainly an importance in reminding people that there is only so far you can lead people by the nose. Most people like to discover things on their own, and many people will get aggravated or annoyed if you're too heavy handed.

So, keep in mind a subtle touch when thinking about allegory. It's fine if you want your story to mean something. It's fine if you want your story to just be an interesting story on its own merit. Any reader will take what they want from any story, and they may find your story means things to them you never intended in your own writing. That's just one more aspect of writing and properly communicating.

I've always poked at the idea that it is your job as a writer to accurately get your reader to interpret things you want them to. You want them to feel the emotions at the right times. You want them to see the scene you want to them to see. Writing is the ultimate test in communication, as its goal is to see whether you can get the experience you want to deliver to match up to the reader. If you want a story to feel sad, your readers better feel sad by the time you finish it, or you've made some kind of failure in communication.

That said, not every reader will get the same things out of your story, and some of the best stories leave some things to the reader to figure out. You don't always need to provide every answer. You don't always need to close every plot hole. The reader has experienced a snap shot in your story, and sometimes they need to draw their own conclusions about the things that couldn't be fit.

If you're story is enjoying enough, they'll want to find out the things that are missing in your story. There is a reason Star Wars fans race behind Lucas and Disney filling up every little plot hole and character arc in their extended universe. Seeing more into a story than what the author intended is a way for some people to enjoy that story. Still, you need to write a good story first, and that why you should always think about the things you want people to take away from your story, and the things you want them to figure out on their own. Good Luck and Happy Writing!