 – one must also learn from it in a way which is characteristic of fiction. But it is imagination which is characteristic of fiction. So to learn from fiction in the relevant sense, one must learn from imagination. This is what I did when I learnt from Flatland of the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension, but not when I learnt from Flatland of the pervasive sexism of Victorian society. It follows that all knowledge from fiction, in the relevant sense, is from imagination. The case of allegorical novels like Animal Farm is different. Animal Farm is a fiction, because its readers are intended to imagine a revolution amongst farm animals 7 by means of recognition of Orwell's intention. But Animal Farm is also an assertion, since though its readers are not intended to believe there was a revolution amongst farm animals, they are also intended to believe that revolutions of a certain type inevitably end in dictatorship, and that since the Russian revolution was a revolution of that type, the Russian revolution inevitably ended in dictatorship. Animal Farm's assertions do not seem to be incidental to its fictional character in the way that Brink's English novels assertions are to theirs – they are a part of the main point of the novel. Likewise, Animal Farm is not merely a roman à clef in which Stalin is represented by Napoleon and Trotsky is represented by Snowball, but the fictional nature of which is merely a veneer. So it'd be wrong to argue that, although Animal Farm is both an assertion and a fiction, when we learn from its assertions we are not learning from fiction in the relevant sense. On the face of it, the imagination is not involved in Animal Farm's assertions about Russia. Rather, Animal Farm works by an argument from analogy. Because of various similarities between the revolution on the farm and the real revolution in Russia – such as the obvious correspondence between Snowball and Trotsky and Napoleon and Stalin, for example – we infer various further similarities – such as that just as the revolution on the farm has ended in dictatorship, the revolution in Russia has ended in a dictatorship. But what justifies proceeding from the known similarities between the animal revolution and the real revolution to this further similarity? If Orwell had changed the ending, for example, so that Napoleon governed as an enlightened philosopher king and the animals lived happily ever after, why couldn't we conclude that Stalin governed as an enlightened philosopher king and Russians lived happily ever after? The answer is that given the already known similarities between the animal revolution and the Russian Revolution, it
– one must also learn from it in a way which is characteristic of fiction. But it is resource which is characteristic of fabrication. indeed to learn from fabrication in the relevant sense, one must teach from imagination. This is what I cause when I learnt from Flatland of the possibility of a fourth spatial property, but not when I learnt from Flatland of the pervasive sexism of priggish society. It follows that all knowledge from fiction, in the relevant common sense, is from imagination. The case of allegorical novel like Animal Farm is different. Animal Farm is a fiction, because its reader are intended to imagine a revolution amongst farm animal 7 by means of recognition of Orwell's purpose. But Animal Farm is also an affirmation, since though its readers are not intended to believe there was a revolution amongst farm animals, they are besides intended to believe that revolutions of a certain type inevitably end in dictatorship, and that since the Russian rotation was a rotation of that character, the Russian revolution inevitably ended in dictatorship. Animal Farm's assertions do not seem to be incidental to its fictional fictional character in the manner that Brink's English novels assertions are to theirs – they are a character of the independent point of the novel. Likewise, Animal Farm is not merely a roman à clef in which Stalin is constitute by Napoleon and Trotsky is represented by Snowball, but the fictional nature of which is merely a veneer. So it'd be faulty to argue that, although Animal Farm is both an assertion and a fiction, when we learn from its assertions we are not determine from fiction in the relevant sense. On the face of it, the imagination is not involve in Animal Farm's assertions about Russia. preferably, Animal Farm works by an argument from analogy. Because of various similarities between the rotation on the farm and the real revolution in Russia – such as the obvious correspondence between Snowball and Trotsky and Napoleon and Stalin, for example – we infer various further similarities – such as that just as the revolution on the farm has end in dictatorship, the revolution in Russia has end in a dictatorship. But what justifies proceeding from the know similarities between the animal rotation and the real revolution to this further similarity? If Orwell had changed the ending, for exercise, so that Napoleon governed as an enlightened philosopher king and the animals lived happily always after, why couldn't we conclude that Stalin governed as an enlightened philosopher baron and Russians lived happily ever after? The answer is that given the already sleep together similarity between the animal revolution and the Russian Revolution, it
 – oje must also learn from lt in a way whick is cheracterjstic of fiction. But it is imaginatiln whicy is characteristic of fiction. Do to leqrn hrom fiction in vge releycnt sskse, oue must learn frpm imaginadion. This is wvag N did when I learnt from Flatland of the poxslbility of a fjurtn spafpao dimension, but not when I lezrnt frmm Flatland og the pervasive sexism of Gictlrian society. It flllows that all jnowledge frum fiction, in the relebant sense, is from imagination. Ghe ccse of alletoeicwn novels lije Anpmal Farm is differend. Animak Farm is a figtion, bexause its readers are intended to imagige a revonucion amongst farm aninaos 7 bi meats ow rezoghivioh of Ogweml's intentjon. But Aninal Farm is also an afwertion, since thougr yts readers are not intended to believe thsre was a revolution amingst farm animals, thgy are alsj intended to believe that revolutions of a certahn ty'e intvlbablh ejd in dictatorship, and that since the Russian defokution was a rcvolution of that yyoe, jhe Russian rexolution jnevitably ended ij dictajorship. Animal Sarm'x assertions do not seem to be incidentcl ro its fictional ckaracter in che wai that Brink's English novels cssertjons are to theirs – ffey are a part ow tme kain point of the novel. Lihewise, Anmmal Yarm is vot kerely a roman à flef lt which Stalin is gepredetted by Naooleon and Trotsky is representxv by Snowball, bgt nhe fictijnal kature of which is merely a vgneer. So nt'd be wrong to zrgue tiat, although Animal Farm hd both an asvertion wnd q fixtion, wfdn we learn frpm its assertions ww are not learning fruj fiction in thz twlevant sense. Pn ghe fwcx of yd, the imagindtiov ir not knvolved in Xnimsl Farm's assertions dbouf Russia. Rather, Anomwl Farm qorks by an argument grom analogy. Becaude of vacious ximylarities between the revolutikn on the favm and the rewl rcvolotion in Ruxsia – such as the obvious correspondencx between Snowball and Rrotsky and Napoleou snd Stalin, hor exwmple – we infer various furthwr similarities – xuch as that just as fhe reeolutlon on the farm has ended in dictatorship, the revolution in Russia has eneed in a dictatorsgip. Nut wvac jbstifief prlreeding from the lnown similarities between the enimal revmlbtion and the real revolution tu this furthet similarity? If Orwell had changed the ending, for example, so that Napoleon governed as an enlightwned lhilosophec king and the animaks livzd happily evwr anter, why couldv't ee conclude thau Stclin governed as an enlightened pyilosophfr king and Russmans lived hwkpily ener aftgr? The answer is fhat hiven the already lnown similariyies between the anikaj revolution abs the Russiam Revolltion, it
– one must also learn from it way is characteristic fiction. But it of So to learn fiction in the sense, one must learn from imagination. is what I did when I learnt from Flatland of the possibility of fourth spatial dimension, but not when I learnt from Flatland of the pervasive of society. follows all knowledge from fiction, in the relevant sense, is from imagination. The case of allegorical novels Animal Farm is different. Animal Farm is a because its readers are to imagine a revolution amongst animals by means recognition Orwell's But Animal Farm also an assertion, since though its readers are not intended to believe there was a revolution amongst animals, they intended to that of certain type inevitably dictatorship, and that since the Russian revolution of that type, the Russian revolution inevitably in dictatorship. Farm's assertions do not seem to incidental to its fictional character in the way Brink's English novels assertions are to theirs – they are a part of the main the novel. Likewise, Animal is not merely roman clef which is represented Napoleon and Trotsky is represented by Snowball, but the fictional nature which is merely a veneer. So it'd be wrong to although Farm is both assertion and a fiction, we from its assertions we learning fiction sense. the of it, the imagination not involved in Animal Farm's about Russia. Rather, Animal from analogy. Because of various similarities between the on the farm and the real revolution Russia – such as the obvious correspondence between Snowball and Trotsky and and Stalin, – we infer various further similarities – such that just as the on the farm has ended in dictatorship, the revolution Russia ended in dictatorship. But what proceeding from the similarities between the and the revolution this Orwell had changed the ending, for so Napoleon governed as an enlightened king animals lived happily ever after, why couldn't we conclude that Stalin governed as an enlightened and Russians lived happily after? answer is that given the already known similarities between the animal revolution Russian Revolution, it
 – one must also learn from it in a Way which is CharaCteRisTiC of fIctiOn. But it is imagiNAtioN which is characteristic Of ficTiON. So tO LeArn frOm fictiON iN THe rElEvAnt SeNSe, One muSt lEarn froM imaginatiOn. THiS is what I did wHEn i learnt froM FlAtland of the pOssIbilitY oF a fOUrth sPatIal diMensioN, But not When I learNt FRom FlaTLand of tHE PeRvasIve sexism of VictorIAn SOciety. It followS that aLl KNoWLEdgE frOm fiction, iN tHe relEVant senSE, iS FROm iMAgination. The cAse of allegoRIcaL novelS lIke aNimal FArm is DiFFerEnt. Animal FaRm is A fiction, bEcause ITs readeRS are intEnded tO imAgiNe a rEVoLuTioN aMOngST fArm ANimAls 7 by meaNs Of RecogNitiON OF orweLl's InteNtion. but Animal Farm Is aLso aN AssErtioN, sincE thoUgH its rEaders Are noT iNtended to believE theRe was a revOluTiOn aMoNgst fARm animAls, TheY are alsO intendED to BeLIEVe That revolutions of a CeRTAiN type ineVitablY EnD iN DictatorShIp, aNd thAT Since The RUSsIan revolUtion wAS a ReVolutioN oF that tYpE, thE RuSsian REvolUtion iNevitablY endeD In dictatorship. aNimal Farm's assERtIONs DO not SeeM to be incideNtal TO its FictIOnAl cHAractEr in tHe WAy THat Brink's English novElS asserTions Are to theirs – thEy are a part OF THe main poInt oF ThE Novel. Likewise, ANimal farm is not mERely a romAn à clEf in whicH Stalin is REPresenteD by napOleOn aND trOtsky is represENTed bY SNowball, But The fictIonAl nAtuRe oF wHich is merEly a veneEr. so It'D bE wrOng to ARgue that, AlThoUgH AnImal FARm is boTh an aSserTiOn ANd a Fiction, WHeN WE leaRn FrOm itS asSeRtionS we aRE noT learniNg from ficTioN In thE rElEvant seNse. On the face oF iT, the imaginAtIon Is not iNVOlved in ANimal Farm's assertions aboUT Russia. ratHer, AnImal farm works By aN argumEnt FRom anaLogy. BeCause Of VarIOUs simILArItiEs Between the REVolUtion On The fArm and tHe real revolution in rUssIa – such as the obVioUs coRREsPonDEnCE beTwEEn SNOWball and Trotsky And NapoleoN aND STalin, for exAMplE – wE infer vArious fUrtheR SimilarIties – such As that jusT aS the REVolUtion on the Farm has eNded in dicTAtorsHIp, The reVolUtion iN RUssIa has Ended iN A diCtatoRship. BUt What juStifiEs ProceediNg from the known similaritIes betWeen tHe aNimal revoLutIOn aNd the real RevoLution to thIs fUrtHer siMilARity? IF OrwELl Had CHangeD the ENding, for eXAmPle, SO ThAt Napoleon gOVERneD as an EnlIGhteneD phiLosopher king and thE Animals lived haPpilY EVer AftER, why CoUldn't we concludE thAt sTAlin goveRnEd as an enligHtened phIlOSopheR king aNd RussIans livED HaPPily evEr afTer? the answer Is tHaT Given thE aLrEAdy knoWn siMiLaritiEs betwEEn thE ANimal revolution aNd the rUSsian rEvoLutioN, iT
 – one must also learn fro m it in away w hic h i schar acte ristic of fict i on.But it is imaginationwhich  i s  cha r ac teris tic off ic t i on.  S otole a rn  from  fi ction i n the rele van tsense, one m u st  learn fro m i magination.Thi s is w ha t I did w hen  I le arnt f r om Fla tland ofth e  possi b ility o f afour th spatial dimens i on ,  but not whenI lear nt fr o m  Fl atl and of the  p ervas i ve sexi s mo f Vic t orian society . It follow s  th at all  k now l edge f rom f ic t ion , in the re leva nt sense,  is fr o m imagi n ation.The ca seofalle g or ic alno v els li keA nim al Farmis  d iffer ent. A n i malFar m is  a fi ction, becaus e i ts r e ade rs ar e int ende dto im aginea rev ol ution amongst f armanimals 7  by  m ean sof re c ogniti onofOrwell' s inten t ion .B u t  A nimal Farm is also  a n as sertion,  since th ou g h its re ad ers  are n ot in tend e dto belie ve the r ewa s a rev ol utionam ong stfarma nima ls, th ey are a lso i n tended to beli e ve that revol u ti o n so f acer tain type i nevi t ably  end in  di c tator ship,  a n dt hat since the Russi an  revol ution  was a revolu tion of th a t type, th e Ru s si a n revolution i nevit ably ended in dicta torsh ip. Anim al Farm's a ssertion s d o n otsee m to  be incidenta l to i ts  fictio nal  charac ter  in  th e w ay  that Bri nk's Eng li sh  n ov els  asse r tions ar etoth eir s – t h ey are  a pa rt o fth e  ma in poin t  o f theno ve l. L ike wi se, A nima l  Fa rm is n ot merely  ar oman  à  c lef inwhich Stalinis  represent ed  by  Napol e o n and Tr otsky is represented by Snowbal l,but t he f ictionalnat ure of  wh i ch ismerely  a ve ne er. S o it' d be  wr on g to argue t hat , alt ho ughAnimalFarm is both an as s ert ion and a fic tio n, w h e nwel ea r n f ro m  it s assertions we a re not lea rn i ng  from fict i onin  the re levantsense .  On the  face ofit, the i ma gina t i onis not inv olved in  Animal F a rm'sa ss ertio nsaboutRu ssi a. Ra ther,A nim al Fa rm wor ks  by an  argu me nt fromanalogy. Because of var ious s imila rit ies betwe ent herevolutio n on  the farmand  th e rea l r e volut ioni nRus s ia –such as the ob v io usc o rr espondenceb e t wee n Sno wba l l andTrot sky and Napoleona nd Stalin, for  exa m p le– w e  inf er  various furth ersi m i larities  –  such as th at justas the r evolut ion on  the fa r m  h a s ende d in  di ctatorshi p,th e  revolu ti on in Rus siaha s ende d in a dict a t orship. But what  just i f ies p r oce eding  f rom the know n similari ties betwee n theanim al re volutio nand th e r ea l revoluti o n to this  furt her sim il arit y?If Orw ellh a d cha nged  t heending, f o r  e x am pl e , s o th at Na po leon  governed as an en lig h tened p hi los o p her ki n ga n d the anim als  live d happily ev e r af t er ,  whycouldn 't weconclud e  th at  Stalin  go v e rned as a n enlight e ned  p hilo sopher k in g an dRus si ans lived happi ly everafter? T h e  answe r i s  tha t  given  t he already k nownsi m ilariti e s  be tween t h e a nim alrevo lut iona nd the Russian Revolutio n, i t
 –_one must_also learn from it_in a_way_which is_characteristic_of fiction. But_it is imagination_which is characteristic of_fiction. So to_learn_from fiction in the relevant sense, one must learn from imagination. This is what_I_did when_I_learnt_from Flatland of the possibility_of a fourth spatial dimension,_but not_when I learnt from Flatland of the pervasive_sexism_of Victorian society._It follows that all knowledge from fiction, in the_relevant sense, is from imagination. The_case of allegorical_novels_like_Animal Farm is different._Animal Farm is a fiction, because_its readers are intended to imagine_a revolution amongst farm animals 7 by_means of recognition of Orwell's intention._But Animal Farm is also_an assertion,_since though its readers are_not intended to_believe there_was a revolution_amongst farm animals, they are also_intended to believe_that revolutions of a certain type_inevitably_end in dictatorship,_and_that_since the_Russian revolution was_a_revolution of_that_type, the Russian revolution inevitably ended_in_dictatorship. Animal Farm's assertions do not seem_to be incidental to_its_fictional character in the_way that Brink's English novels_assertions are to theirs – they_are a_part of_the main point of the novel. Likewise, Animal Farm is not_merely a roman à clef in_which Stalin is represented_by Napoleon_and_Trotsky is represented_by_Snowball, but_the fictional nature of which is merely_a veneer._So it'd be wrong to argue_that, although Animal Farm_is_both an assertion and a fiction,_when we learn from its assertions_we are not learning from_fiction_in_the relevant sense. On the_face of it, the imagination is_not involved in_Animal Farm's assertions about Russia. Rather, Animal_Farm_works by an argument from analogy._Because_of various similarities between the revolution_on_the_farm and the real revolution_in Russia – such as the_obvious correspondence between Snowball and Trotsky and Napoleon and_Stalin, for example_– we infer various further_similarities_–_such as that just as the revolution on the farm_has ended_in dictatorship, the_revolution in Russia has ended in a dictatorship. But what_justifies proceeding from the known similarities between_the animal revolution and the real revolution to this further similarity?_If Orwell had changed the ending, for example,_so that Napoleon governed as an enlightened_philosopher king and the_animals_lived happily ever after, why couldn't we_conclude_that_Stalin_governed as an_enlightened philosopher king_and Russians lived_happily ever_after? The answer_is that_given the already_known_similarities between the animal revolution and the Russian Revolution, it