06-30-2014, 01:54 PM
Tom,
"the fact that I'm giving the goldfish a human voice throughout?"
"ie that a goldfish could not understand said journey and therefore the metaphor fails?"
Yes and yes, the narrator cannot be the goldfish, as it lacks the ability to contemplate. I assume (and I may have assumed incorrectly) you are trying to use the life/fate of the fish as an example of human life, or to comment on human life.
I think you nailed it more clearly than I could. Yes, the problem is in the voice. You can note attributes that humans and goldfish have in common, such as in a satiric way, comparing humans to fish that spawn then die, but the fish does not have the attribute of a voice, it does not think, it does not contemplate. In the metaphor you are examining humans in the attributes of the fish. Once you give the fish a voice, it basically becomes a human, and thus the metaphor is lost. It ceases to be metaphorical and becomes fantastical. That works well in satires like animal farm, as it helps get below the mental defenses of a person, because he does not at first see himself as an animal. I can use a tree to point out the attributes of a human. I can say he bends, but does not break, has leafy hair, his arms are long and skinny like branches, but if that is the way I am using the tree, I cannot have it begin speaking, or commenting about its environment.
Maybe that answered your question, and makes some sense. I'm a bit rushed at the moment. So please forgive the randomness that creeps in.
Dale
"the fact that I'm giving the goldfish a human voice throughout?"
"ie that a goldfish could not understand said journey and therefore the metaphor fails?"
Yes and yes, the narrator cannot be the goldfish, as it lacks the ability to contemplate. I assume (and I may have assumed incorrectly) you are trying to use the life/fate of the fish as an example of human life, or to comment on human life.
I think you nailed it more clearly than I could. Yes, the problem is in the voice. You can note attributes that humans and goldfish have in common, such as in a satiric way, comparing humans to fish that spawn then die, but the fish does not have the attribute of a voice, it does not think, it does not contemplate. In the metaphor you are examining humans in the attributes of the fish. Once you give the fish a voice, it basically becomes a human, and thus the metaphor is lost. It ceases to be metaphorical and becomes fantastical. That works well in satires like animal farm, as it helps get below the mental defenses of a person, because he does not at first see himself as an animal. I can use a tree to point out the attributes of a human. I can say he bends, but does not break, has leafy hair, his arms are long and skinny like branches, but if that is the way I am using the tree, I cannot have it begin speaking, or commenting about its environment.
Maybe that answered your question, and makes some sense. I'm a bit rushed at the moment. So please forgive the randomness that creeps in.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.