|Not going to lie, it made me cry a little.|
Her comment, should you not care to clink on the link, referenced the literary device known as the pathetic fallacy.
And the pathetic fallacy, should you not care to click on that link, refers to the literary device wherein inanimate objects are portrayed as having human emotions or experiences.
You know, like when clouds are sullen, or winds are mournful, or streets are hungry, or dump trucks stand in judgment of our wrongs. Possibly I'm reaching with that last one.
|Or, you know, fully half of Dylan's|
"Visions of Johanna."
The thing is, it's a confusing name. Because "pathetic" in this case doesn't suggest "sad" or "pitiable" or "unworthy of understanding," to name a few popular interpretations of the word. Instead it represents the classic etymology of the term, the root of which is "pertaining to feelings for others," as in "empathetic" or "sympathetic." Or, in the case of a pathetic fallacy, to portray trees, or clouds, or other non-human things as experiencing or embodying human emotions.
But I have a problem with the term "fallacy."
Fallacy means a failure of logic, a null proposition, a voided argument. It means, in a word, wrong.
Is there something wrong with ascribing living, breathing, human emotions to things and abstract concepts?
That's what "fallacy" suggests, amiright?
|Straight from Google, yo.|
That a minority can be oppressed or misunderstood;
That a social movement can be proud or determined;
That an institution can be corrupt;
That a political campaign can act maliciously;
That an electorate can be ignorant, or oblivious, or gullible;
That a war can be prudent;
That a murder can be moral.
All of these things are fallacies.