The Metaphor and the Dragon
I have been reading a lot about literature lately, and am constantly discovering new facets of it. The art of storytelling is an interesting and subtle art, one whose composition (as opposed to mere superficial study) I have not been as well versed in as I would like.
Sure, I understand the use of metaphors, imagery, symbolism, dichotomy, syllogism, and the such, but I never thought of each of these forms except AS forms. That is, for instance, I never thought of how the metaphor, as Northrop Frye points out, is one of few language tools in which two things are used to describe each other without modifying either. To say that a house is like a mountain is to modify house as Mountain-Like. However, to say that a 'house is a mountain' is to say that the house is mountainlike and that mountains are like this house, but both remain untouched by modifications (until they become similes).
He also points out that, paradoxically, all metaphors are also, at once, similes. This places strain on the theory of modification, but it nevertheless holds, because while saying "the house is a mountain" and the "house is like a mountain" are technically (literally) saying the same thing, the modification is obvious when we say "the house is like a mountain." We are modifying house, we are talking about the house, mountains are only figuratively expressed. But when we say "the house is a mountain" we are talking both of mountains and houses: the two are not only interchangeable, or identical, they ARE the same things, just as when we say that two twins are 'identical', we are, literally speaking, not saying they look alike but that they ARE the same person, that they occupy the same time and space as each other (which is why the phrase "identical twins" holds such scorn from Frye).
At any rate, the metaphor is an interesting beast for this and a variety of reasons. Just a thought.
Sure, I understand the use of metaphors, imagery, symbolism, dichotomy, syllogism, and the such, but I never thought of each of these forms except AS forms. That is, for instance, I never thought of how the metaphor, as Northrop Frye points out, is one of few language tools in which two things are used to describe each other without modifying either. To say that a house is like a mountain is to modify house as Mountain-Like. However, to say that a 'house is a mountain' is to say that the house is mountainlike and that mountains are like this house, but both remain untouched by modifications (until they become similes).
He also points out that, paradoxically, all metaphors are also, at once, similes. This places strain on the theory of modification, but it nevertheless holds, because while saying "the house is a mountain" and the "house is like a mountain" are technically (literally) saying the same thing, the modification is obvious when we say "the house is like a mountain." We are modifying house, we are talking about the house, mountains are only figuratively expressed. But when we say "the house is a mountain" we are talking both of mountains and houses: the two are not only interchangeable, or identical, they ARE the same things, just as when we say that two twins are 'identical', we are, literally speaking, not saying they look alike but that they ARE the same person, that they occupy the same time and space as each other (which is why the phrase "identical twins" holds such scorn from Frye).
At any rate, the metaphor is an interesting beast for this and a variety of reasons. Just a thought.
posted by Shannon | 11:13 AM
|
0 comments
