05-12-2012, 10:29 AM
To me this seems a problem that arises fairly often, but which I often refrain from mentioning due to needing to explain what I am referring to. This is that explanation.
It is not an essay on Simile and Metaphor and how to use them correctly, nor does it seek to give the reader a definition of the same; it is a brief examination of how these two tropes when used as if one were using the other, can create problems of clarity in a poem.
Metaphor is a comparison, and is not to be taken literally. Unlike simile, it does not say one thing is similar to another, it says "one thing is the other". Metaphor is used to define or redefine how something is viewed or understood. Metaphor always uses or implies the verb “is”, thus rendering a “one to one” corollary.
There are three basic types of metaphor: simple, complex and extended (we will deal only with the simple type here). Simple metaphor uses a known symbol/idea and equates it to the phenomena being described so that the reader (or hearer) forms a definition for a heretofore unknown phenomena, or a new or ancillary definition. Example,
She is the apple of my eye.
She, is the phenomena being equated to, and thus described by “apple of my eye”. We then interpret the phrase “apple of my eye” as having a specific meaning which we then equate to “she”. If she is an unknown quantity, then this becomes the primary and sole definition for “she”, if she is a known quantity, then the new definitions generally acts as the primary, although not the only definition for “she”.
Context must be provided
The use of metaphor does not require that the phenomena be set within some context because it is being completely defined, or primarily redefined and it is assumed that the description will include the necessary context.
This is different from simile, which says that one thing is “like” another. Using the language we used with metaphor, we would says that a phenomena is said to be like some other quantity or condition. For a simile to function well and not cause confusion the phenomena must be placed within a context. Example:
She is like the wild wind.
Unlike with metaphor, where we might says the definition of “she” is lacking
she=the wild wind
with simile we says the context is lacking, and this is very much a real, not artificial distinction. With metaphor we cannot respond by saying “who is she” for “she” has been defined as “the wild wind”, we can only complain that “the wild wind” is not an adequate definition to make any meaningful sense out of “she”.
With simile, conversely, we say that the context of she is lacking. “Who is she?” If we supply context by stating that she is my mother/girlfriend/sister and she has certain attributes, then we begin to create a context within which to understand the simile.
She=my younger sister who is ADHD “is like” the wild wind.
Now we see that wild wind is not really describing “she” but rather a particular aspect of her. We also see that both sides of the equation must be present for a simile to make sense.
Metaphor as new definition:
If a metaphor is being used to describe an unknown phenomena, then whatever definition it provides will determine how successful it is. Such a description will generally not be brief. For example if “she” is a completely unknown quantity, then a brief and simple phrase such as “the wild wind” will not suffice because it is through the definition that context is provided in a metaphor. For example
She is the wild wind.
obviously is lacking, however:
She is the wild wind, the daughter of Borealis
begins to provide the necessary context within which to understand who she is. Certainly, it is still lacking, but we see in which direction we must progress for our metaphor to become adequate. This does not mean we are limited to one sentence, or that we should pile one dependent clause upon another. Nor are we required to give the full description at the moment, but can add to it as we progress, just as long as it is adequate, and we do not introduce elements related to “she” that are not accounted for at the time.
The Problem of Creating a Facade:
If this were prose in the form of a novel, we would be allowed to “leave the reader hanging” for awhile until we got to the “back story”. Poetry is not prose, and such an approach within what is generally a much shorter framework will generally only lead to confusion, as readers of poetry expect to have the ingredients at hand, and not have to wait on further information in order to understand what is currently being read.
It is similar to saying “OK, I will give them half of the information they need to understand the problem, then I will introduce the problem, then give the rest of the information.” Such a tactic is done (oftentimes unconsciously or through imitation) to create the illusion of depth or complexity when none actual exists. This often appears in terms of assessment. The poem ask the reader to assess something (the good or bad of a character, the danger of a situation), but it does not give the reader the information he needs until later, or not at all.
So while we may need not to finish our metaphor at the place it is introduced, we must avoid creating a facade in the process.
If one looked at this as an equation, one could say with metaphor the context is provided on the right hand side:
A(phenomenon) = B (symbol/idea/description) + context
with simile, one could say it is on the left hand side
A(phenomenon) + context (is like) B (symbol/idea/description)
Things are rarely that tidy, but if it helps you, then you have it, just don't mistake the road map for the actual territory.
Dale
BTW I was quite aware of the double entendre in the title
It is not an essay on Simile and Metaphor and how to use them correctly, nor does it seek to give the reader a definition of the same; it is a brief examination of how these two tropes when used as if one were using the other, can create problems of clarity in a poem.
Metaphor is a comparison, and is not to be taken literally. Unlike simile, it does not say one thing is similar to another, it says "one thing is the other". Metaphor is used to define or redefine how something is viewed or understood. Metaphor always uses or implies the verb “is”, thus rendering a “one to one” corollary.
There are three basic types of metaphor: simple, complex and extended (we will deal only with the simple type here). Simple metaphor uses a known symbol/idea and equates it to the phenomena being described so that the reader (or hearer) forms a definition for a heretofore unknown phenomena, or a new or ancillary definition. Example,
She is the apple of my eye.
She, is the phenomena being equated to, and thus described by “apple of my eye”. We then interpret the phrase “apple of my eye” as having a specific meaning which we then equate to “she”. If she is an unknown quantity, then this becomes the primary and sole definition for “she”, if she is a known quantity, then the new definitions generally acts as the primary, although not the only definition for “she”.
Context must be provided
The use of metaphor does not require that the phenomena be set within some context because it is being completely defined, or primarily redefined and it is assumed that the description will include the necessary context.
This is different from simile, which says that one thing is “like” another. Using the language we used with metaphor, we would says that a phenomena is said to be like some other quantity or condition. For a simile to function well and not cause confusion the phenomena must be placed within a context. Example:
She is like the wild wind.
Unlike with metaphor, where we might says the definition of “she” is lacking
she=the wild wind
with simile we says the context is lacking, and this is very much a real, not artificial distinction. With metaphor we cannot respond by saying “who is she” for “she” has been defined as “the wild wind”, we can only complain that “the wild wind” is not an adequate definition to make any meaningful sense out of “she”.
With simile, conversely, we say that the context of she is lacking. “Who is she?” If we supply context by stating that she is my mother/girlfriend/sister and she has certain attributes, then we begin to create a context within which to understand the simile.
She=my younger sister who is ADHD “is like” the wild wind.
Now we see that wild wind is not really describing “she” but rather a particular aspect of her. We also see that both sides of the equation must be present for a simile to make sense.
Metaphor as new definition:
If a metaphor is being used to describe an unknown phenomena, then whatever definition it provides will determine how successful it is. Such a description will generally not be brief. For example if “she” is a completely unknown quantity, then a brief and simple phrase such as “the wild wind” will not suffice because it is through the definition that context is provided in a metaphor. For example
She is the wild wind.
obviously is lacking, however:
She is the wild wind, the daughter of Borealis
begins to provide the necessary context within which to understand who she is. Certainly, it is still lacking, but we see in which direction we must progress for our metaphor to become adequate. This does not mean we are limited to one sentence, or that we should pile one dependent clause upon another. Nor are we required to give the full description at the moment, but can add to it as we progress, just as long as it is adequate, and we do not introduce elements related to “she” that are not accounted for at the time.
The Problem of Creating a Facade:
If this were prose in the form of a novel, we would be allowed to “leave the reader hanging” for awhile until we got to the “back story”. Poetry is not prose, and such an approach within what is generally a much shorter framework will generally only lead to confusion, as readers of poetry expect to have the ingredients at hand, and not have to wait on further information in order to understand what is currently being read.
It is similar to saying “OK, I will give them half of the information they need to understand the problem, then I will introduce the problem, then give the rest of the information.” Such a tactic is done (oftentimes unconsciously or through imitation) to create the illusion of depth or complexity when none actual exists. This often appears in terms of assessment. The poem ask the reader to assess something (the good or bad of a character, the danger of a situation), but it does not give the reader the information he needs until later, or not at all.
So while we may need not to finish our metaphor at the place it is introduced, we must avoid creating a facade in the process.
If one looked at this as an equation, one could say with metaphor the context is provided on the right hand side:
A(phenomenon) = B (symbol/idea/description) + context
with simile, one could say it is on the left hand side
A(phenomenon) + context (is like) B (symbol/idea/description)
Things are rarely that tidy, but if it helps you, then you have it, just don't mistake the road map for the actual territory.
Dale
BTW I was quite aware of the double entendre in the title
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.
.