This statement implies a sense of imbalance in storytelling. Often, certain groups or individuals have control over the narrative. The lion here can be seen as a symbol of those who are not in control currently. Until they can write every story, the stories will be incomplete or biased. Consider the stories of indigenous peoples. For a long time, they were not the ones writing their own stories, and as a result, the stories told about them were full of misinformation. Once they start writing their own stories, the whole truth will emerge.
It could imply that until the powerful or the silenced (represented by the lion) gain the ability to tell their own stories, the true version of events may not be fully known. Just like in many situations, the dominant voices often shape the stories, but when the less - heard (the lion) can write every story, things will be different.
I think it could suggest that until a traditionally strong or authoritative group acquires the skill of presenting diverse stories, there will be a lack of comprehensive and inclusive storytelling. Maybe it's about challenging the status quo and giving voice to the voiceless.
It implies that until those who are usually silenced or misrepresented (like the lion in this metaphor) are able to speak for themselves, the true story won't be fully known.
In society at large, think about the disabled community. They are like the lions. Until they can fully write their own stories, society may have a distorted view of what it means to be disabled. The media or non - disabled people may be writing their stories in a way that doesn't accurately represent their experiences, feelings, and capabilities. When they start writing their own stories, it will lead to a more inclusive and accurate understanding of disability.
Well, 'until the lion writes his own story' means that for a long time, the narrative has been controlled by others. Just like in history, the powerful often write the stories. But when the lion, who represents those who have been overlooked or misrepresented, writes its own story, it will show a different perspective. For example, in colonial history, the colonizers wrote the stories of the colonized, but when the colonized people start to write their own stories, we see the real struggles, cultures, and values that were previously hidden. It's about giving a voice to the voiceless and showing the truth from their own eyes.
It implies that there are always two different perspectives or viewpoints in any situation. Just like in a dispute, one person may see it as right while the other may think it's wrong.
It means that there's a unique style suitable for each individual story. Different stories have their own distinct characteristics, and a corresponding style is needed to bring out their best.
It could mean that until the one with power or the main actor (the lion in this metaphor) shares their perspective, the real or full story isn't known. For example, in a situation where there are different accounts of an event, the most important or dominant party's view is yet to be heard.
It implies that each tale, whether it's a short fable or a long epic, has a story within it. Tales are vessels for stories, and this statement emphasizes the fundamental nature of tales as carriers of narrative.
It implies that each animal has its own unique experiences. For example, a stray dog might have a story of survival on the streets, facing hunger and danger. It could also mean that animals have emotional and behavioral stories. A cat that was once abused may have a story of learning to trust humans again.
It implies that leaders use stories as a tool. Stories can be used to inspire their followers, convey their vision, and make their ideas more relatable.