i loved this piece and found it really fascinating. the only thing i wanted to note—
you say: “Precise, unambiguous language, language that means exactly what it says, feels staid or even impotent. But calling something by some other thing’s name cuts right to the quick, unlocks a whole new type of emotional response. Another point for Hobbes, I guess.”
i disagree (mostly with hobbes), if the point is for his argument that metaphors are dishonest. isn’t language that can evoke a specific emotional reaction that “plain” language can’t communicate the most honest of all? e.g., if you say, “i love her very much” that might not mean much. but if you say “loving her makes my day brighter, my soul sing” etc etc, that IS more honest, if it actually succeeds at evoking the feeling you feel. we need metaphors precisely because we are trying to be honest, to communicate the depth and breadth of feeling, that plain language fails at capturing.
i totally agree with this take. a lot of the ways that we understand the world are through metaphor as well, so isn’t it more honest to use metaphor to evoke the same response in the reader rather than pretending everyone has the same idea of what the “precise” language means?
Phenomenal. I want to thank you specifically for writing something which amounts to scholarship in the same way as anything the eminent Lakoff and Johnson might've written, but allowing it to be read for free, placed the public domain. You are educational accessibility, read in that light. This was really, really good; thank you <3
"Would it be possible to write a book with no metaphor at all? It feels more like a Borgesian concoction than like a truly feasible stylistic choice." I see what you did there ;) also, great examples at the end!!
There are fewer people in history that I would fight as hard as I would fight Hobbes about most things.
i loved this piece and found it really fascinating. the only thing i wanted to note—
you say: “Precise, unambiguous language, language that means exactly what it says, feels staid or even impotent. But calling something by some other thing’s name cuts right to the quick, unlocks a whole new type of emotional response. Another point for Hobbes, I guess.”
i disagree (mostly with hobbes), if the point is for his argument that metaphors are dishonest. isn’t language that can evoke a specific emotional reaction that “plain” language can’t communicate the most honest of all? e.g., if you say, “i love her very much” that might not mean much. but if you say “loving her makes my day brighter, my soul sing” etc etc, that IS more honest, if it actually succeeds at evoking the feeling you feel. we need metaphors precisely because we are trying to be honest, to communicate the depth and breadth of feeling, that plain language fails at capturing.
i totally agree with this take. a lot of the ways that we understand the world are through metaphor as well, so isn’t it more honest to use metaphor to evoke the same response in the reader rather than pretending everyone has the same idea of what the “precise” language means?
Embassytown by China Miéville is a sci-fi novel about what metaphor does to our lives- highly recommended!
Phenomenal. I want to thank you specifically for writing something which amounts to scholarship in the same way as anything the eminent Lakoff and Johnson might've written, but allowing it to be read for free, placed the public domain. You are educational accessibility, read in that light. This was really, really good; thank you <3
"Would it be possible to write a book with no metaphor at all? It feels more like a Borgesian concoction than like a truly feasible stylistic choice." I see what you did there ;) also, great examples at the end!!
Amazing! I loved this, and hadn’t thought about metaphor in this way before
wonderful essay!!
my heart also lies with the figurative and this was such a pleasure to read! running to go read la disparition immediately
Brilliant Eleanor
love love love