Well first, don't apologize for a long but thought-out response. :)
Virgil is a great choice for examples of metaphors that are well done. Your example is a good one, no argument there. Is the metaphor in the parable as tight as one written by Virgil? Certainly not. Indeed the line you quoted from the parable is a poor stylistic choice; it ties the reader in too closely with literal interpretation. However the central question that needs to be asked when examining any metaphor is this: was it effective in communicating to the reader the central message? I argue in this case yes. When I read it, I didn't get tied up in the specifics of the food. My thought process was this: (1) Three objects placed in boiling water (2) Outcomes are all different (3) Some outcomes are good, some outcomes are bad (4) All the objects are food, why are the outcomes different? (5) The internal characteristics of the food led to different outcomes (6) Perhaps the internal characteristics of a human being could lead to different outcomes.
If the metaphor wasn't tight enough for your liking, that's ok! Personally, I don't have the same expectations from a piece on the internet and a piece by Virgil. The metaphor was good enough to get the job done for me, but I certainly wont argue with you if you refuse to accept it. :)
The main area where I disagree with you is when you say: When I can rewrite a story as I read it to have the opposite meaning as it was supposed to, it suggests to me that it was not written in the first place with a critical eye. My point is that your rewritten version actually means the same thing as the original. I don't think the story has anything to do with coffee beans in the literal sense. The writer could have used lobsters. ;)
Virgil is a great choice for examples of metaphors that are well done. Your example is a good one, no argument there. Is the metaphor in the parable as tight as one written by Virgil? Certainly not. Indeed the line you quoted from the parable is a poor stylistic choice; it ties the reader in too closely with literal interpretation. However the central question that needs to be asked when examining any metaphor is this: was it effective in communicating to the reader the central message? I argue in this case yes. When I read it, I didn't get tied up in the specifics of the food. My thought process was this: (1) Three objects placed in boiling water (2) Outcomes are all different (3) Some outcomes are good, some outcomes are bad (4) All the objects are food, why are the outcomes different? (5) The internal characteristics of the food led to different outcomes (6) Perhaps the internal characteristics of a human being could lead to different outcomes.
If the metaphor wasn't tight enough for your liking, that's ok! Personally, I don't have the same expectations from a piece on the internet and a piece by Virgil. The metaphor was good enough to get the job done for me, but I certainly wont argue with you if you refuse to accept it. :)
The main area where I disagree with you is when you say: When I can rewrite a story as I read it to have the opposite meaning as it was supposed to, it suggests to me that it was not written in the first place with a critical eye. My point is that your rewritten version actually means the same thing as the original. I don't think the story has anything to do with coffee beans in the literal sense. The writer could have used lobsters. ;)