> And then nobody who read his book back then
> really understood it, and Swift got pretty mad
> about that.
>
> In other words, if you want people to
> understand what you're saying, then just *say*
> it.

"Just saying it" would be writing down an opinion column instead of a story. That worked for Jesus -- he told parables to illustrate a point in a compelling and understandable way, and then, *always*, explained the interpretation of his parables after the fact, so that there would be no confusion about the point being made. But if you're telling a story that's meant to be read for entertainment on a lazy Saturday summer afternoon, and you want to infuse the story with some substance and food for thought, "just saying it" is a bad idea. First and foremost, you want a story that's a good story. Otherwise you're writing a parable, not a work of entertainment, and not even explaining it afterward.

What you have to say is only the half of it. How you say it determines an awful lot of things, the most important of which is the perspective the subject matter is approached from. Opinions are less than a dime a dozen, and nobody's ever had an idea that someone else hasn't had before. What makes literature worthwhile is if it looks at something in a new way, approaches it from a different angle, and, as such, makes people re-evaluate things in light of the new perspective.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who miss the point (as with Gulliver's Travels) or find subtext where it doesn't exist (as with the WWII allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings), but I don't think it's such a great idea to self-suppress the expression of one's vision because some people won't get it.